Whether the Supreme Court's procedural handling of a pro se litigant's in forma pauperis application violates due process rights when the application is denied without clear communication and the litigant has documented disabilities

No question identified. : while disregarding petitioner’s witnesses statements. These MSPB Judges should not be practicing law if they are not going to abide by the law. The District Courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FC should follow their rules and laws to be fair to the Petitioner. Just because petitioner is pro-se is not a reason to allow the DOJ’s Attorney’s to win this case; especially since the DOJ has relied on the lies of HUD’s Attorneys. Petitioner states that since her initial submission to this Court, postmarked August 14, 2023, she was subjected to being ignored by the Clerks office, Clayton Higgins and Scott Harris. On November 2, 2023, Petitioner spoke with someone who stated she was a supervisor, named “Susan”, who forwarded petitioner’s message, to call her, to Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins never returned petitioner’s call until petitioner reached out to others to contact Mr. Higgins. It was at that time Mr. Higgins would call petitioner. On two occasions, Mr. Higgins returned petitioner’s documents. One time stating it was incorrect and to resend. The second time, with no further instructions, petitioner’s case was returned. Petitioner had to call the Court for clarification. Petitioner sent in the required documentation to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerks refused to give petitioner a case number. The Court after months of trying to submit her documents, told petitioner her case was placed on the docket on November 20, 2023 as case No. 23-6059, and would be reviewed by the nine Justices. Not one time did the Court tell Petitioner, | who suffers from disabilities, that her in forma pauperis request was denied. Why would the Court clerk allow Petitioner to send 10-copies of the case at least three (3) times, giving the impression her in forma pauperis was approved; knowing if a petitioner requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis, that petitioner “cannot” afford to send in 10-copies, over-and-over again; less alone the 40-copies which is required with a fee for non-in forma pauperis? 2. IAW Rule 30 (4.) petitioner is aggrieved by the Clerks’ actions pertaining to this case, as listed above, and request that this motion be submitted to a Justice or to the Court. Petitioner request the Clerk to report action under this paragraph to the Court as instructed under this paragraph. Petitioner received a letter dated and post marked, January 8, 2024, from the Court on Monday, January 22, 2024. Petitioner request a 30-day extension to February 29, 2024 if any further action is required of her since she does have disabilities, and she did not received the denial letter from the Court until January 22, 2024. Petitioner cannot afford a lawyer, and the courts refuse to assign an Attorney to her knowing she has documented disabilities; regarding her inability to focus and/or concentrate etc. Petitioner asks the Court’s reconsideration for in forma pauperis, and to review her briefs to the MSPB and to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FC; without requiring any additional copies. Copies were served to the opposing counsel. Respectfully, Michelle Ferrell, USAF vet., pro-se fbi 1, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 29, 2023. Michelle A. Ferrell, pro-se, USAF disabled vet Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, DC 20543-0001 Scott S. Harris Clerk of the Court January 8, 2024 (202) 479-3011 Ms. Michelle A. Ferrell PO Box 820032 North Richland Hills. TX 76182 Re: Michelle A. Ferrell v. Department of Housing and Urban Development _ —_No. 23-6059 | Dear Ms. Ferrell: The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case: The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 29. 2024, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit 2 petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this C