Whether the two federal courts may in this manner and by issuing these rulings deprive a litigant of the right to pursue their state action in state court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner brought her action in D.C. Superior Court claiming relief against a third-party administrator and its nurse supervisor of a disability program of an international organization, the “World Bank’, for $40,375, and punitive damages and for pain and suffering caused by their tortious acts during administration. Respondents removed claiming ‘diversity jurisdiction’. On March 17, 2022 the District Court Ordered dismissal of Petitioner’s complaint and denied Petitioner’s motion to remand, ostensibly basing its decision on erroneous factual findings (without evidence) and through the misapplication of numerous properly stated rules of law. On April 4, 2022 Petitioner appealed the non-final order. Whereupon on April 12, 2022 the District Court ordered . the case closed. In December 2022 the Court of Appeals issued final judgment upholding the March Order. The Court of Appeals did not remand and denied Petitioner's requested leave to amend. These courts by combined exclusionary conduct ending Petitioner's state action. Whether the two federal courts may in this manner and by issuing these rulings deprive a litigant of the right to pursue their state action in state court, the Court of Appeals having so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, and sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. Whether they exceeded their power in refusing to follow precedent and apply the law, and so as to deny any rights exist against contractors engaged by International Organizations, thereby extending immunity not granted to such parties . by Congress. And whether the Constitution and this Court’s decisions can be construed to authorize such broad determination outside judicial federal boundaries.