Question not identified.

No question identified. : attached 23-10009 Clerk’s May 03, 2023 Order was returned to petitioner (pgs. 1-3). This application was originally submitted more than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled filing date. The Supreme Court has proper jurisdiction per Supreme Court Rule 10 (a)(c). Honorable Justices and Honorable Clerk of the Court, petitioner writes to your Court being confused of the Court rules. This is not a frivolous application for extension of time and nor is this an attempt to play on the Court’s time and intellect. This application for extension of time is filed in great faith. Due ProcessJustice requires perfect impartiality. This is an application for extension of time to file writ of certiorari, and/or writ of mandamus, Phillips v. TDI-DWC, et al.. Petitioner is presently the appellant for: 1) Originating petition form TDI-DWC as trial Court Case, 101** Dallas County Judicial District Court (DC-21-06299); 2) The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, 05-22-00859-CV; 3) The U.S. District Court of Northern Texas Dallas Division (3:22-CV-01598) and 4) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (23-10009). Honorable Justices, Petitioner files this correction for application for extension of time as soon as petitioner knew it would be impossible, as an uneducated, pro se in forma pauper, to intellectually write a writ of certiorari and/or writ of mandamus in the allotted time required by the Honorable Court. Honorable Justices and Honorable Clerk of the Court, there would be an egregious conflict of the Court and law to deny this application for extension of time. This is an application for extension of time that precedes, documented, egregious affirmations of injustices. Honorable Justice Bonnie Goldstein writes in her Order, Phillips v. TDI-DWC, et al, Oct. 14, 2022, Appellant has informed the Court she has removed this civil action to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas Dallas Division. Pursuant to section 1446 of title 28 of the United States Code, further action in this cause is automatically suspended, See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(@). For administrative purposes, this cause is ABATED. It will be reinstated upon receipt of a certified copy of an order of remand. See id. § 1447(¢); Gonzalez v. Guilbot, 315 S.W.3d 588, 537-88 (Tex. 2010). Please ref. Order attached EXHIBIT ORDER 10.24.2022 (pg. 6) Honorable Justice Bonnie Goldstein further writes in her Order (05-22-00859-CV), March 14, 2023, We REINSTATE this cause, which we abated upon receiving notice appellant had removed the action to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, for the sole purpose of clarifying, at appellees’ request, our abatement order. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(d). Appellees explain in their motion to clarify that the trial court has held several hearings since the action was removed and has scheduled an in -person hearing for March 20, 2023. Appellees request we expressly abate or stay the trial court proceedings. We GRANT the motion to the extent we note that jurisdiction over this action Hes exclusively in the federal court until the action is remanded, and the state courts are prohibited from proceeding any further until that time. See In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 624 (Tex. 2007) (“From the time the case was removed to federal court until it was remanded to state court, the state court was prohibited from proceeding further.”), We also note that any orders entered by the trial court while the action is in the federal court are void. See Meyerland Co. v. F_D.1.C., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex. 1993). To ensure timely and proper disposition of the cause in this Court, we DIRECT appellees to file a status report upon disposition of the action in federal court, We again ABATE the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(d).” Please ref. Order attached EXHIBIT ORDER 03.14.2023 (pgs. 7-8). Honorable Justices, the aforementioned Orders will further manifest injustice w