Whether the 7th Circuit's decision is an error, contrary to well-settled law, finding respondent was 'substantially prejudiced' by petitioner's actions or inaction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the 7‘ Circuit’s decision is Under Color of Law Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 an in error, contrary to well settled law, finding respondent was “substantially prejudiced” by petitioner's actions or inaction while not defending the insured or subrogation rights in a primary action; has been | established as a question of fact to be decided by a jury and is not appropriate | for summary judgment | 2. Whether a federal court must follow the decisions of the state's highest court in summary judgment; that a question of prejudice presents a genuine issue of material fact which should be before a jury and not for summary | judgement. 3. Whether well-settled law in Illinois Supreme court rule that unless the alleged breach of the “cooperation clause” finding substantial prejudice, the | insurer in defending the insured in the primary action, it is not a defense under the contract. 4. Whether respondent's failure to plea “prejudice” as an affirmative defense, was “untimely” then is waived or forfeited(F.R.8(C )the magistrate’s decision, | Under the color of law Title 18, prejudiced the petitioner and violated the petitioner's right due process and equal protection. : 5. Whether the 7‘ Circuit abused its discretion, arbitrarily and capriciously ! affirmed district courts misapplication of Rule56.2 Notice to Pro Se litigants “ ..dt learned that Porter did not receive the requisite notice it directed USAA to mail the notice to her and granted Porter 30 days leave to amend. 1 Soe. When the movant fails to comply then “the district court must do so. ‘ 6. Is a 30day notice to “file additional evidence “improper notice” if no Rule : 56.2 is attached and notice does not warn petitioner of consequences of not responding. 7. Has a pro se litigant been “properly noticed” if she never received 30-day notice, the record shows no proof of mailing or delivery, violates due process and equal protection. 8. Whether movant’s alleged breach of “cooperation” is contested by petitioner’s | filing more than 50 documents, pursuant to 28 U.S Code sec 1746 | declaration on “personal knowledge” presents a genuine issue of material fact 9. Whether filing documents on “personal knowledge” pursuant to 28 U.S Code sec1746 classified as “exhibits,” denied petitioner’s due process | 10.Can a magistrate, under color of Law Title 18 U.S.C., Sec. 242 arbitrarily | without motion, allow respondent to correct the record 8 months after all | briefing when pro se litigant received no notice of Rule 56.2 per record. | 11. Whether the District and 7‘ Circuit courts abuse its discretion denying pro | se petitioner counsel when "exceptional circumstances” existed due to | COVID and the complexities of litigation were not considered. | ’ 1 | | =oe, . al