Should the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied to a violation of the constitutional right to due process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied to a case of which the central concern is a violation of the constitutional right to due process beginning with the lack of legal representation in a civil commitment hearing and leading to the unlawful incarceration and chemical lobotomy of a competent individual to ensure that the individual has a fair opportunity to seek legal redress for the violations they endured and the resulting harm? 2. Would it be just, fair, and equitable to examine the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling in a case where substantial evidence reveals perjury, bad faith, gross negligence, deception, falsification of court and medical records, and fraud, including Medicaid fraud, in order to decide whether equitable tolling should be allowed to extend the statute of limitations? 3. Is it just and equitable to examine whether the State can use the statute of limitations to prevent suit over the course of this case, the State has been allowed to violate numerous United States Constitutional rights, Federal laws, and State laws, especially given the presence of unconscious bias in prior rulinggand the resulting severe harm? 4, Should this Court consider the conflicting federal rulings in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (WAWD), where the court allowed a defendant in a related case to remove a case from the superior court to the federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331-which grants the federal district courts with original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law, while denying the same removal right to the plaintiff citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441-outlines the provisions for the removal when the case involves federal jurisdiction, which is claimed to only grant defendants the right to remove a case? Put in a different form. Is it just to permit only defendants removal of civil actions to the original federal court jurisdiction yet plaintiff's are not permitted the same removal rights.