Whether a federal district court judge's adverse rulings in prior cases constitute a cognizable constitutional violation or impermissible judicial bias warranting collateral review

No question identified. : 11.102 To the Honorable Judge of said Court: Come Linda Baldwin pro Se, (1). Permission to file litigation (2). Has not filed to harass. (3) has not file to delay. APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of the Rules of this Court, Applicant Linda Baldwin Hereby requests a 60-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari up to and including Friday, December 4, 2021 of this Court JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The judgment for which review is sought is Linda Baldwin vs. U.S. Judge Robert Pitman Violation of Civil Rights and denied of a dissent order she never received which prejudice her from the fifth circuit court of appeals January 19,2024. (Exhibit A). The fifth Circuit Appeals Court State New Orleans, Louisiana denied Applicant’s motion for rehearing or modification on February 29, 2024 (Attached as Exhibit B). JURISDICTION This Court will have jurisdiction over any timely filed petition for certiorari In this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (1). Under Rules 13.1, 13.3, and 30.1 of the Rules of this Court, a petition for a writ of certiorari was due to be filed on or before April 19, 2024 in accordance with Rule 13.5, this application is being filed more than 10 days in advance of the filing date for the petition for a writ of certiorari. 11.102 REASONS JUSTIFYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME Applicant respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the decision of the fifth Circuit of the State of Louisiana in this case. Applicant request extension of time due to her back injuries and illness, as Baldwin, pro se would not usually ask for a 60-day extension request, if she was not injured as Baldwin as she moves this Court to extend the time for the filing of the certiorari initial Brief, and as grounds therefore, states: 1. The issues in this case are complex and involve the constitutionality and of a state and federal statute, 2. Additional time is necessary to prepare a writ of certiorari and given the unusually massive size of the record in this case, and the more than fourteen-years (20) prior litigation history that is also relevant to this appeal, an extension of sixty (60) days is requested to review the materials, and draft the informal opening brief. 3. There will be no prejudice to Appellee in granting this request for extension of time to file the Initial Brief. 4. This Motion is made in good faith, and not merely for purposes of delay. WHERFORE, Appellant respectfully requests that this Motion be granted, and that the deadline for the filing of the informal opening brief be extended by sixty (60) days, to and including, jj, Li 2024 DU 7029 9 Villada Street Las Vegas, NV 89084 (702) 779-0483 Itistime3 @yahoo.com EXHIBIT A Gnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Clreult FILED No, 23-50349 4 Summary Calendar January 18, 202 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ' LINDA BALDWIN, versus U.S. DisTRICT JUDGE ROBERT PITMAN, Defendant— Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:23-CV-426 Before SMITH, SOUTHWICK, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:” Linda Baldwin filed a pro se civil rights action against District Court Judge Robert Pitman, alleging that he had violated her constitutional rights and had discriminated against her through his adverse rulings on prior lawsuits challenging the denial of workers’ compensation benefits, and asking that all orders and opinions by Judge Pitman in her prior cases be thrown out. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See STH C1R. R. 47.5. No. 23-50349 The district court noted that Baldwin had been previously barred from filing a cause of action without obtaining approval from a federal district or magistrate judge; to the extent that Baldwin was seeking authorization to file, the district court concluded that her claims we