Does the lower court's decision to bar petitioner, and deny equitable tolling for the period of time petitioner was incapacitated, violate due-process and the principles of fairness?

Question presented for review; 1. Does the lower court's decision to bar petitioner, and deny equitable tolling for the period of time petitioner was incapacitated, in the intensive care unit, and ; on life support at Ohio State University Hospital violate due-process and the principles of fairness when that decision is based on petitioners failure to present ( the hospital records to prove he was in the Hospital, when the Warden has the records in his possession, and the petitioner has diligently sought to obtain the records In question? 2.Should petitioner be required to submit the hospital records when the warden is not disputing the fact that he was in the hospital for the time requesting to be tolled, Oct. 21st 2012 through December 6th of 2021? 3. Is it not a conflict when one court denies equitable tolling for an extraordinary circumstance and another grants it under similar circumstances. (see Harper v. Ercole, 648 F.3d 132) Pg. 9,38. 4, Should a constitutional violation so sever as to create a structural error, producing a result that is unreliable, be dismissed as a procedural error? 5. Is it not well established that once judicial bias is confirmed, that the only remedy is a new trial . i [ ] All parties appear in the caption of cover. List of Proceedings; Prior relevant History: ; United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, March 8, 2024, Filed, No. 23-3599, Pursuant to established court procedures, the panel now denies the petition for rehearing en banc. February 22nd,2024 United States District Court for the Sixth Circuit declined to rehear Petitioners request to rehear his petition, and request for Certificate of appealability. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, (Gibson v. Shoop, 2024 US. App. LEXIS 1357) Case No. 23-3599 (January 19, 2024, Filed) U.S.D.C. for the Sixth Cir. Denied petitioners application C.O.A. Petitioner Argued had it not been for denial of time to be equitably tolled in which petitioner is entitled to Petitioners §2254 petition would be timely. Pg.7, Par.2 of sixth circuit decision the court states that requesting a stay regarding claims 5 through 15 would be inappropriate because they are essentially the same as the claims made in his first post-conviction petition. This is because this is Petitioners First PostConviction petition arising to this level and the claims made have never been ruled on their merit’s. The request for a stay and abeyance is requested because Postconviction counsel failed to : represent petitioners claims as filed in his petition Filed March 13th,2021 after learning of Judge Pater’s unconstitutional Bias in this case. Petitioner was forced to back track and present the claims in a second petition. These claims have not yet _ been exhausted in state court. As to claims 5 through 15 they are currently under appeal in the Ohio State Supreme Court as of February 15th,2024. (January 16th,2024) (State of Ohio v. Paul H. Gibson, CA2023-05-056) In . the court of appeals Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio. Judgment entry. Order to dismiss appellants appeal as appellants’ arguments are outside the scope of entries from which the appeal was taken. The Arguments were certainly not outside the scope of the judgment ruling of which the appeal is based. April 24th, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas General Division Judge James A. Brogan issued a FINAL APPEALBLE ORDER I reference to the claims argued in 5 through 15, (see Doc. 4/24/2023) (Pg.2-Par.1 Judge Brogan directed Gibson to file his appeal of his Crim. R. 33 Motion for a new Trial in the 12th District Court. Therefore, Petitioners claims are not outside of the scope of the entries from which his appeal was taken but rather exactly what should and has been appealed. . | United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division : June 26, 2023, Filed Case No. 1:22-cv-697. Judges: Matthew W. McFarland, petition ‘was recommended to be dismissed with prejudice. : iii Judge McF