Whether the Third Circuit abused its discretion by denying a stay of civil-rights proceedings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Third Circuit abused its discretion by denying my Motion to stay the civil rights proceeding relating to civil rights violations against me by Defendants for petitioning the Delaware Supreme Court 1. for an exemption from bar dues for all attorneys facing hardship, paying the dues since the Court required I petition individually, and separately petitioning for relief for all attorneys similarly situated in order not to compel the Court to violate the Equal Protections Clause since other attorneys faced hardship, 2. in a Delaware religious Freedom Restoration Act case Kelly v Trump US Supreme Court Number 21-5522, 3.years of ignored petitions regarding religious beliefs that were ignored and thus denied, which I may not discuss herein, and the subsequent Delaware Lawyer Discipline law suit brought against me about 9 days after I filed this Civil rights case in retaliation with animus for my petitions, containing my private-religious beliefs in the speech in my private petitions, given procedural due process violations in both Kelly v Trump and the Delaware Disciplinary Matter, and ongoing reciprocal disciplinary cases, which may be stayed by this Court’s finding, until the Delaware State Court parallel discipline decision and Third Circuit of Appeals parallel discipline decision is determined by the US Supreme Court or until a writ of petition for Certiorari is denied, or the time for appeal has tolled under the extraordinary circumstances to: i. prevent duplicity of potentially conflicting decisions in parallel disciplinary cases in the 1. State of Pennsylvania, 2. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 3. Disciplinary case in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, 4. Delaware District Court 5. Appeal of the Delaware Disciplinary Matter, 6. And the civil rights case which is the subject of this petition, all relating to the same subject matter, based on the Delaware ii Supreme Court’s decisions, setting precedent for other reciprocal cases to continue under the extraordinary facts of my case, where the Delaware’s decision may be overturned or afformed, unless this court reverses the Third Circuits Order denying a stay. il. prevent potentially needless unaffordable costs relating to duplicated litigation on the same issues from becoming a substantial burden upon my access to the courts, creating an obstacle so great as to deny me access to the courts to defend my license and exercise of fundamental rights, given my poverty and religious objection to debt, iii. prevent a government compelled violation of my religious belief against indebtedness in order to exercise my right to petition the Court in defense of the exercise of fundamental rights and license(s) by increase in needless, duplicative costs, iv. prevent government compelled involuntary servitude in exchange with access to the courts to defend my licenses and liberties from being taken away for my religious beliefs in Jesus reflected in my speech contained in my private petitions, Vv. prevent the risk of loss of my fundamental rights to religious belief, religious exercise of beliefs, political and religious speech, association and the right to privately petition to the courts to address grievances to safeguard my exercise of religious belief without state persecution but for disagreement with my religious-political speech contained in my petitions, before the Delaware Courts. vi. prevent the chilling of the exercise of First Amendment liberties by the public or other professionals who may fear reprisal in the form of the loss of their license or being deemed mentally disabled but for their exercise of individual liberties merely because the State disagrees with their First Amendment beliefs, or their petitions or iii their attempt to hold the government, including government agents of both state and federal government to the limits of the Constitution. vii. prevent harm to my health and life. My health has diminished. I req