Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and abused its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 455 by allegedly discriminating against a self-represented litigant through biased judicial conduct and improper application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

No question identified. : Case: 21-56306, 09/30/2023, ID: 12801971, DktEntry: 40, Page 2 of 8 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION Introduction By July 25, 2023 I received two notices that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("USCA9") filed two dispositions. The first disposition was in the appeal of Uziel v. Superior Court of the State of California, et al. [No. 21-56306] dated July 3, 2023. The second disposition was in the appeal of Uziel v. Newsom [No. 21-56303] dated July 5, 2023. On September 15, 2023 I filed a motion requesting to extend time to file a combined petition for extraordinary relief and for certiorari to the USCAQ. I added to that motion a request for leave of Court to file Amicus briefs and also for leave of court to allow me to join the two cases into a single petition. On September 30, 2023 I received a letter from Ms Rashanda Garner! advising me that I need to file any application to extend time to file the petitions separately for each case, without any other motion attached to the application to extend time. To comply with Ms. Garner letter, I hereby submit two separate applications; each will be electronically serviced on opposing counsel by electronically posting the application on the USCA9 docket of each case. Per Ms. Garner’ letter 1 am allowed to combine both dispositions into a single petition and receive a case number in the US Supreme Court pursuant to rule 12.4. The USCA9 dockets of both appeals (No. 21-56306 and No. 21-56303) clearly show bias and conduct of discrimination against self represented Petitioner. Uziel was denied as self represented litigant any access to due process of law within the Federal Courts of the Ninth Circuit, as customary to other litigants. * See attachement Case: 21-56306, 09/30/2023, ID: 12801971, DktEntry: 40, Page 3 of 8 Consequently, the questions to be presented in the sought petition to the US Supreme Courts will be identical for both judgments; and so will be the relief sought. The petition seeks to end the discrimination against the self represented Petitioner by complying with the all the requirements delineated in the Equal Protection Clause found in the Fifth and the Fourteen Amendments to the US constitution. Petitioner plans to seek an USSC orders to USCA9 and the Courts below to prohibit violation of the Eight Amendment’ from imposing cruel and unusual punishment on Petitioner; and to abide by the impartiality requirements as defined in the canons of the Code of Ethics of Federal Judges as well as in 28 USC section 455. The practical relief sought in this petition is to compel litigation of both Complaints before a jury. Petitioner seeks review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the reasons why USCA9 ratified, without due process of law, an apparent abuse of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1] and Rule 12. The alleged deprivations of Uziel' rights to due process of law include evidence to tampering with witness declarations and with admissible evidence. Both USCA9 dockets include evidence that opposing Counsels in both cases cut secret deals with the Federal Judges to discriminate against a self represented litigants The U.S. Supreme Court remains the last resort sought to protect Petitioner’ rights as a self represented litigant pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause and from abuse of judicial powers and discretion to damage Petitioner in violation of the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Case: 21-56306, 09/30/2023, ID: 12801971, DktEntry: 40, Page 4 of 8 Good cause exists to grant Petitioner' Application Judicial discrimination against a protected member of class of litigants is neither limited to Yehoram Uziel nor can be presumed as an innocent mistake of one or more judicial officers. Combining the two dispositions into a single petition under Rule 12.4 requires additional time to compose a petition for extraordinary relief and certiorari to USCA9 and properly merge the appendices. In addition Petitioner needs more time to clearly estab