Did the Third Circuit err in not doing a De Nova Review

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW CASE BRIEF The Petitioner filed in the United States District Court of New Jersey CIVIL CASE NO.: 3:2020-cv-02540 BRM-DEA against the Defendant Judges for the following Constitutional Violations as follows: (1) VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1981, 1983,1985,1986 and 1988, against Defendants Einbinder, Ford, Doran, Schron Hodgson and Thorton (2) Violations of the Fourth, Fourteenth and Eight Amendments to the Constitution of the United States against Defendants Einbinder, Ford, Doran, Schron, Hodgson, and Thorton. The Defendants in this instant case have performed quasijudicial acts and are subject to personal liability for their actions and Constitutional Violations. The complaint of the Petitioner involves the tortious acts of various state judges’ action as judicial administrators under the color of state law. They have for years been violating the Petitioner’s rights protected by the United States Constitution and Federal law. They have illegally kidnaped the Petitioner and are guilty of abuse : of Process and malicious prosecution in this case. The United States District Court dismissed Petitioners Second Amendment Complaint and denied his motion for a preliminary injunction on 1st November 2021. Petitioner Appealed from the order dated 1st November 2021 of the United . States District Court of New Jersey in CIVIL CASE NO.: 3:2020-cv-02540 BRMDEA denying appellants civil complaint and motion for preliminary injunction. i The Appellate court (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) took on file the said Appeal in Case No: 213115 and merely confirmed the Federal District Court Order without any De Nova Review and through a Non-Speaking order dated 3™¢ May 2022. The Petitioner aggrieved by the Third Circuit Court order, prefers the instant . WRIT OF CERTIORARI before the Honourable US SUPREME COURT. 1. Did the Third Circuit err in not doing a De Nova Review of the Federal District Court Dismissal Order when the dismissal was pertaining to 28 USC 28 USC § 1915 (e)(2) B) (iii)? 2. Did the Third Circuit err in blindly confirming the District Court Screening Procedures pursuant to 28 USC 28 USC § 1915 (e)(2) (B) when the issue was pertaining to Judicial Immunity of Judges? 3. Did the Third Circuit err in sightlessly confirming the District Court Dismissal Order when it merely stated “relief sought by Shaikh in the district Court does not concern actions by the defendants taken outside of their judicial capacity” without any analysis or speaking order or doing a De Nova Review of any of the factual : violations of Defendants detailed in the Petitioners complaint? 4. Did the Third Circuit err in thoughtlessly confirming without any analysis or through a speaking order when it interpreted Mireles V, Waco 502 U.S.9 (1991) and merely stated “In Mireles, the Supreme Court held that judges do not have immunity for” nonjudicial actions” or “actions taken in complete absence of all ii jurisdiction”. We agree with the District Court that neither exception applies here and that the defendants were entitled to judicial immunity”? 5. Did the Third Circuit intentionally fail in conveniently not speaking or deciding upon the Appellants following specific statements of issues under Appeal such as: (1) Is it a violation of the Fist Amendment right of speech (right to petition), 42USC 1981 (right to sue, vie evidence, to be parties to suits), the 144" Amendment right (due process) and access to the courts, even if the person has been determined vexatious by a State Court, in particularly as in this case. (a) US Citizens are determined as vexatious by fraud and conspiracy (b) If US citizen’s civil cases are not being evaluated properly and thus his or her access to courts are wrongfully denied, restricting their ability to sue (c) If appellate courts have refused to accept US Citizens petitions because he or she has been wrongfully determined as a vexatious litigant (2) Whether the vexatious litigant statutes sh