Whether the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion in finding that the petitioner had not shown excusable neglect for not filing his Notice of Appeal within 30 days

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether the Ninth Circuit abused it's discretion finding Petitioner had not shown excusable neglect for not filing his Notice of Appeal in the District “Court within 30 days if the District Court decision(filing it 3 days late), FRAP 4(a)(5)(A), when the District Court was refusing to provide him a copy of the request for certificate of appealability filed in its court, despite Covid modified program forcing him to file his only copy, deprived of copying services by the prison law library, causing him to be preoccupied with recreating the argument, and given that he had mistakenly filed the request for an extension of time in a separate case brought by him, prematurely, {a| result of a mix-up. With the District Court accepting the late filing; Whether the state court was duty bound by Cal. Const. Art. VI, § i to rectify constitutional error by exercising it's Article III jurisdiction invoking upon the state legislatures power under Cal. Const. Art. IV, § 1 to intervene in habeas proceedings in order to expand Fourteenth Amendment protected classes to include "different persons" being treated equal, as the circumstances warrant} Whether 28 USC § 2254(d)(1) is unconstitutional if it would deprive District Courts ability to effect a remedy by demanding it exercise it's Article III jurisdiction to invoke the California legislatures interference to expand the protected class to include "different persons" being treated equal, when the circumstances warrant, with Tigner v. Texas extending an invitation.