Whether a federal district court judge violates procedural due process and judicial impartiality by relying on fabricated evidence and displaying bias when ruling on a summary judgment motion in a Title VII employment discrimination case

No question identified. : The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S. C. § 2101(f). Compelling Issues and Substantial Questions 1. Is it a violation of substantial rights under procedural due process of law when a district judge at the pretrial stage and subsequent circuit judges on a motion for summary judgment act as triers of fact, contravene Rule 56), ignore motions for relief and this Court’s established precedent, displaying conscious bias to a pro se party’s entitlement? to summary judgment? 2. Whether a judge’s impartiality is questioned when he/she fails to investigate fraud on the court, when the plaintiff is the movant on an undisputed motion for summary judgment’, then defendant files a subsequent motion for summary judgment 34 days later and supports it with fabricated evidence that was not in the record at the close of discovery — to which the judge relied on to make its ruling in favor of liable employer. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 3(a) Florida Statute 768.73(c) states: ' (c) Where the fact finder determines that at the time of injury the defendant had a specific intent to harm the claimant and determines that the defendant's conduct did in fact harm the claimant, there shall be no cap on punitive damages. 2 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) of the Constitution 3 Followed by defendant procuring an extension of time to respond via fraud, plaintiffs Rule 60(b)(3) motion for relief — denied by magistrate judge in violation of Rule 72a (see App. E p. 8), who retired to recall 10 days later, district judge and 2°¢ magistrate recusals, both attorneys’ withdrawal in USCA-11 (substitute counsel at oral argument is prior clerk to the judge’s decision being challenged (who sits by designation USCA-11 — see App. F p. 10). 28 U.S. Code § 2111 states: On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. 28 U.S. Code § 455 states: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Potential Violation of Procedural Due Process of Law Movant: During discovery on September 28, 2021, Applicant — for a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution to liable employer’s frivolous defense, moved for a summary judgment supported by 174+ pages of evidence against defendant, (“JEARespondent”) for her race retaliation claim making prima facie showing — thereby meeting her initial burden of production imposed by Rule 56. See D.C. Doc. No. 65 App. H, and screenshot clipping(s) of the district court docket below: t — ; + —— — — — ———_+, 09/28/2021 | 65 |MOTION for Summary Judgment by Deirdre Baker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # Z Exhibit G, # § Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 1 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(RH) (Entered: 09/29/2021) Discovery ended two days later on September 30, 2021. 09/30/2021 | 66 |SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE re 65 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Deirdre Baker Signed by Deputy Clerk on 9/30/2021. (RH) (Entered: 09/30/2021) Non-movant: In response 34 days later, JEA-Respondent admitted all material facts asserted true and stated, “Plaintiffs own record evidence sho