Do the Federal Laws of Civil Procedure (Fed R. Civ. P 12) and the Federal Laws of Appellate Procedure (31) set a time limit for a respondent to respond to notice of litigation?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question 1.) Do the Federal Laws of Civil Procedure (Fed R. Civ. P 12) and the Federal Laws of Appellate Procedure (31) set a time limit for a respondent to respond to notice of litigation? Question 2.) In Timbs v. State of Indiana did the US Supreme Court Rule: Held: The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 29.(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or ; “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires. Pp. 2-3. (b) The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming. Pp. 3-7. Question 3 ; Should a writ of Mandamus be issued directing ALL Courts to acknowledge the lack of response by, and refusal of, the state of South Carolina to timely respond to any of Petitioner’s efforts, as required by Fed r. Civ. P. 12 et sec, beginning with US District Court Southern District Indiana 1:20-CV-0006 and leading to case no. SCOTUS 20-7568, in the Supreme Court of the United States of America, thereby awarding Petitioner “the win” and the Right to be made whole for her losses, immediately and without further process. Petitioner is a person who was turned into an American slave when her Constitutional Rights and Constitutional Protections were maliciously taken from her so that her assets, her future and her wealth could be taken from her through the wrongful ascent of Judge James R. Sweeney and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals when it upheld Judge Sweeney's wrongful decision that ANY state has the Sovereign Right to Deny and Violate Petitioner's Right to Due Process. Question 4 ; Was OUR Constitution written for the purpose of making all people in America safe through the creation, iteration, application and preservation of OUR equal Rights (14A), or was OUR Constitution written for the betterment of only those who can afford to . pave the road to the Courts with greenbacks and gold? Are we all equal in the eyes of the ‘ law in America? PARTIES TO THE CASE L.E.Pauli Coffey Vs. State of South Carolina (South Carolina NEVER responded)