Whether the Supreme Court order that Federal Courts of Appeals are obligated to sua sponte review subject-matter jurisdiction issues regardless of the circumstances

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question 1 presented is: Whether the Supreme Court order that Federal Courts of Appeals are obligated to sua sponte review subject-matter jurisdiction issues regardless of the circumstances. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012). “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). “The rules at issue here are the Fed: eral Rules of Civil Procedure, which have the same force of law that any statute does.” In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig., No. 20-3075 (6th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff filed a Motion (TWO times) per Rule 55(a) for Dorwin (the Clerk of the District Court) to enter a default against Defendant Brundage in an Unauthorized Practice of Law lawsuit. (Jaiyeola v. Brundage, No. 1:21-cv-01053 (W.D. Mich. 2021)). Dorwin did not consider the two Motions and Dorwin did not respond to the two Motions. A Clerk is required to respond to Motions directed to the Clerk. Dorwin violated Plaintiffs’ “constitutional right to due process and equal protection,” violated Plaintiff’s “first : amendment” rights, and denied Plaintiff due : 1 Futernick. 2 Filipas. Soren ae ii . QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued process. “All government officials must respect all constitutional rights.” Ermold et al. v. Davis et al., Nos. (6th Cir. 2019). “A fundamental requirement of due process is “the opportunity to be heard.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 234 U. S. 394. It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965). The denial of due process implied that the District Court “was without jurisdiction to render a final and binding decree.” See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). Question 2 presented is: Whether a District Court Clerk’s repeated violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, first amendment rights, and denial of due process required the District Court’s decision to be reversed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. A court “generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in the suit (subject-matter jurisdiction)... .” Sinochem Intl Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007). In Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982), the Supreme Court noted that subject-matter jurisdiction, then, is an Art. III as ; well as a statutory requirement; it functions as a iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued restriction on federal power, and contributes to the characterization of the federal sovereign. and a party does not waive the requirement by failing to ; challenge jurisdiction early in the proceedings. See also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006). All courts have an “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 USS. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). The general trend in all appeal courts is that subject-matter jurisdiction is not waivable or forfeitable. Levin v. ARDC, 74 F.3d 763, 766 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be contested by a party or raised sua sponte at any point in the proceedings.”). Detabali v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 482 F.3d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702. (1982); Galvez v. Kuhn, 933 F.2d 773, 775 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1991)) (“Defects in subject matter jurisdiction are nonwaivable ; and may be raised at any time, including on appeal.”). “Although jurists often use the words interchangeably, “forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right[;] waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment