Whether a state court judicial system can constitutionally adopt a rule prohibiting judicial decisions from being cited as precedent in subsequent legal proceedings

No question identified. : To the Honorable Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Circuit Justice for the State of California. I, petitioner Peter Kleidman, pro se, hereby apply for a 60-day extension in which to file my petition for writ of certiorari, pursuant to Rule 13.5. Basis for Jurisdiction. I maintain that the procedures and laws used in the California Courts of Appeal violated my US Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the laws. 28 USC §1257(a). The California courts did not address my equal protection and due process arguments. I will seek this Court’s jurisdiction on the grounds that there is “‘no doubt from the record that [the federal claim] was presented in the state courts and that those courts were apprised of the nature or substance of the federal claim.’” Goeke vy. Branch, 514 US 115, 118 (1995). Judgment sought to be reviewed: After the California Court of Appeal ruled against me, I filed a petition for discretionary review to the California Supreme Court. I also filed a motion to have the Court of Appeal’s opinion published, which the Court of Appeal summarily denied. I sought review of this denial in the California Supreme Court, too. On September 27, 2023, the California Supreme Court summarily denied both my petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s opinion, and my request to have the Court of Appeal’s opinion published. These summary denials are attached hereto. Accordingly, the deadline in which to petition for certiorari is December 26, 2023. However, for reasons set forth below, I cannot reasonably make this deadline with an optimal petition, and I therefore request a 60-day extension under Rule 13.5. Parties for whom _an extension is sought. An extension is sought only for petitioner Peter Kleidman. Respondents. The respondents are the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District (“DCA2”), Justice Elwood Lui, Administrative Presiding Justice (“APJ”) of DCA2 (ex officio), and the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division One (“DCA4/1”). This case might be of interest to this Court. One of the questions is whether a state-court judicial system can legitimately adopt a rule which empowers its judicial officers to forbid their decisions from being cited by others. This issue was presented to this Court in Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ul., 434 US 257 (1978), but this Court left the question to “another day.” /d., at 258, n. 1. Maybe the Court is willing take on this question 45 years later. As Your Honor is aware, I filed two unsuccessful petitions before. 22-557; 22725. I am now more familiar with the process and am no longer starting from scratch. However, because my prior petitions failed, I need to spend substantial time developing a new approach. I am spending time not only on my own contentions, but also reading successful petitions to try to ascertain how best to present my questions. I am working pro se, without any help from an attorney. As Your Honor is also aware from prior applications (22A277, at p. 4; 22A370, at p. 6), I had been dealing with family issues which were substantially impairing my ability to work on my litigation. In particular, I had been caring for two immediate family members who were incapable of caring for themselves. Since then, one of my family members, my mother, passed away in July, 2023. I am now the sole executor of her estate and sole trustee of a trust that she had set up. These responsibilities as sole executor and trustee have taken up, and continue to take up, a significant amount of my time, impairing my ability to work efficiently on my litigation. I also continue to care for the other immediate family member who is incapable of caring for himself. This obligation, too, takes up a substantial amount of my time. Moreover, as I mentioned in prior applications, I am involved in an extensively time-consuming case, Kleidman v. RFF, 22A277, at 4-5; 223