Whether the dismissal of timely filed appeals for failure to file opening briefs, a claims processing rule, without verifying the factual circumstances and providing an opportunity to show cause, violated due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whereas, in Petitioner Dubin’s three separate timely appeals, filed by him both as an attorney and as personally representing himself and nearly onehalf of his clients also personally aggrieved, a Circuit Court motions panel dismissed all three Petitioners’ appeals without a hearing for Dubin’s alleged failure to file three opening briefs all due at the same time. Whereas, Dubin meanwhile had been in bed in three successive hospitals recovering from hip surgery followed by a period of supervised rehabilitation, unable yet to walk let alone prepare three opening briefs. Whereas, the Clerk’s Office was notified of Dubin’s hospitalization, and Dubin’s staff timely requested short-term briefing extensions, neither they nor his doctors knowing when he would fully recover, which extension requests, submitted by his staff, the Clerks’ Office graciously granted. Whereas, before the three opening briefs were due pursuant to the most recent written extension from the Clerk’s Office and while the briefs were being completed by Dubin upon his recovery, a motions panel abruptly entered three separate orders dismissing all three appeals seemingly unaware of the Clerk’s last granted extensions and Dubin having done as the Clerk exactly advised. 1 Whereas, Dubin filed a timely request with the motions panel for reconsideration in each appeal and for leave to file his opening briefs forthwith and for other related procedural relief, setting forth under oath the fully documented health information earlier given to the Clerk, with a copy of the last written Clerk’s extension. And whereas, the motions panel ironically thereafter waited four full months before denying reconsideration and denying Dubin leave to file the opening briefs or to consider lesser sanctions. Therefore, both alternatively and/or concurrently: 1. Was it an abuse of discretion and a violation of Due Process for a Circuit Court to dismiss timely filed appeals for failure to file opening briefs, a claims processing rule, without first verifying the factual circumstances by formally issuing Petitioner Dubin an order to show cause? 2. Was it an abuse of discretion and a violation of Due Process for a Circuit Court to dismiss timely filed appeals for failure to file opening briefs, a claims processing rule, where its Clerk’s Office had granted an intervening extension for filing and related “Help Desk” filing advice, upon which Clerk’s advice Petitioner Dubin had relied? ii 3. Was it a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act for a Circuit Court not to provide reasonable filing accommodations where Petitioner Dubin was suffering from a known temporary disability and to instead dismiss timely filed appeals for resulting failure to file opening briefs, a claims processing rule? 4, Was it a violation of Due Process derived Equal Protection Rights for a Circuit Court to dismiss timely filed appeals for failure to file opening briefs, a claim processing rule, while affording the right to appeal for others not suffering from a temporary disability? ii THE PARTIES NAMED PETITIONERS AND NAMED RESPONDENTS IN JOINT PETITION 9th Cir. Case No. 21-16838 In re Gary Victor Dubin USDC Respondent and CA9 Appellant and USSC Petitioner Gary Victor Dubin No Opposing Parties 9th Cir. Case No. 21-16839 Gary Victor Dubin vs. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, et al. USDC Plaintiff and CA9 Appellant and USSC Petitioner Gary Victor Dubin USDC Detendants and CA9 Appellees and USSC Respondents The Office of Disciplinary Counsel of The Hawaii Supreme Court; Bradley R. Tamm in his individual personal capacity while serving under color of law as both the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Hawaii Supreme Court and the Fund Administrator of the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection of the Hawaii Supreme Court; and Clifford L. Nakea in his individual personal iv capacity while serving under color of law as Chairperson of the Disciplinary Board of the