Must rulings reflect material facts on the record?

Questions Presented | | 1. Must rulings reflect material facts on the record? Neither Petitioner nor Respondent dispute that | Petitioner was a tenured civil service employee fired without due process. Moreover, although Petitioner is a preference-eligible veteran, Respondent unilaterally banned her from competing for federal civil service placement so that Petitioner could not dispute the ban that remains in place. None of the rulings below reflect these facts. Instead, they imply that there are no questions of due process deprivations. 2. Absent the timing allowances granted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is the sua sponte extension of time to act after an expired deadline a discretionary matter? After Respondents missed the deadline to respond to the amended claims and Petitioner moved for summary judgment, the court below unilaterally extended the expired deadline without excuse or request from Respondents. 3. Must judgments reflect docketed matters of merit? To validate the merit of pretrial summary judgment against the US government, Petitioner filed a list of fully argued supporting facts before the court ruled on the merit of the request. The document remains unacknowledged by the courts below. Despite repeatedly calling attention to the document at district and appeal levels, each court has ruled that Petitioner's claims warranted dismissal because she sought pretrial summary relief without establishing merit. The US District Court of the Northern District of Georgia concluded that Petitioner sufficiently pleaded the merit and timely filed the petitioned claims before transferring the case. The US District Court of South Florida twice dismissed the claims for lacking merit and possibly being untimely. 4. When do timely appeals filed and defended in good faith, and even found to be abusive of judicial discretion, create a pattern of delay deserving of dismissal? As part of the district court's justification for the contempt sanction, Petitioner's three prior appeals, including one that overturned a previous ft dismissal for abuse of discretion, were cited as a pattern of delay. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled the same, although the court did not rule that any of the appeals were frivolous before co. The rulings also implied that Petitioner missed or delayed filing deadlines, but the docket below shows otherwise. 5. Is sua sponte dismissal of all claims sustainable when the sanction was without warning against a prose party, barred opportunity to redress or re-file, was based on a nonexistent local rule, and no other authority supported the ruling? After Respondent objected to the sua sponte extension of the missed deadline to respond to the amended claims and asked the court to determine merit related to summary judgment based on the matters on the record, the district court dismissed all claims for contempt. , Despite Petitioner's pleas to reconsider or reverse because of legislative bars against refiling, the court below upheld the dismissal. 6. Does a nonexistent authority serve as a fair warning? The appealed action is the second dismissal of the case by the originating court. Each time, the court cited United States District Court South Fi lorida Local Rule 7.1(c) as its authority for dismissal, although the rule only provides guidance for the Memorandum of Law, which did not apply to the matters the court was considering at that time. Upon appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that the rule gives fair warning. TI