Is a United States citizen considered to have received due process of law in a court ordered mandatory arbitration hearing if the Pro Se plaintiff is denied a court reporter by both JAMS Arbitration Firm and the United States District Court Northern District California San Jose in violation of Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights when appointing a court reporter to a needy litigant was mandated by the California Supreme Court (Jameson vs Desta)?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED In Jackson vs Applied Materials, Wherein the Sth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided an important question of Federal Law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. Question: Is a United States citizen considered to have received due process of law in a court ordered mandatory arbitration hearing if the Pro Se plaintiff is denied a court reporter by both JAMS Arbitration Firm and the United States District Court Northern District California San Jose in violation of Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights when appointing a court reporter to a needy litigant was mandated by the California Supreme Court (Jameson vs Desta)?