Whether a pro se litigant's failure to timely file a petition for writ of certiorari due to financial constraints constitutes grounds for an extraordinary extension beyond the Supreme Court's standard 10-day extension period

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIVE CIRCUIT To the Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Five Circuit: Petitioner Joshua Marbley requests an extension of time to file his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Petitioner requests a sixty-day extension of time from April 9, 2024, to June 9, 2024. The order of the Five Circuit which is being appealed was entered January 9, 2024 and is enclosed. Jurisdiction of this Court to review the order and judgment of the Five Circuit is being invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Petitioner seeks an extension of time to file his Writ of Certiorari because financial difficulties have precluded him of rising the enough funds to pay Cockle Legal Briefs to prepare the petition prior to the deadline to file the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (and notably, after the Supreme Court Rule 13.5’s 10-day extension window). Petitioner seeks the extension so that Cockle Legal Briefs has sufficient time to fully evaluate the merits of his matter and to file his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Respectfully submitted, Joshua Marbley Pro-Say Litigant 535 Seminar Drive Apr #283 Houston, Texas 77060 Phone: (713) 885-5491 Email: Date: March 28, 2024 Case: 23-20360 Document: 59-1 Page:1 Date Filed: 01/09/2024 Gnited States Court of Appeals for the Stfth Circutt oss Great FILED January 9, 2024 No. 23-20360 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk JOSHUA MARBLEY, versus TEAMSTER LOCAL 988; MICHAEL OFFORD, PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL HONER, PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; SHEBRENNA TANGARIFE, PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; RHONDA RUSSELL, PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; BRUCE JOHNSON, PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; ERIC NELSON, PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; JESSICA CRAFT, PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.; BERG PLUMMER JOHNSON & Raval, L.L.P.; LAW OFFICE OF ERIc H. NELSON, Defendants— Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CV-3396 Before WIENER, STEWART, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges. Case: 23-20360 Document: 59-1 Page:2 Date Filed: 01/09/2024 No, 23-20360 PER CURIAM:* Joshua Marbley filed suit against Teamster Local 988, Michael Offord, Michael Honer, Shebrenna Tangarife, Rhonda Russell, Bruce Johnson, Eric Nelson, Jessica Craft, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Berg Plummer Johnson & Raval, L.L.P., and The Law Office of Eric Nelson, raising claims arising under, inter alia, the National Labor Relations Act, the Texas Whistleblower Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the National Transit System Security Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Marbley’s complaint, upon motion of the defendants, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Marbley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as well as its denial of a motion for recusal of the district court judge. Marbley based his argument for recusal in the district court upon the district court’s failure to rule on several motions which were pending at the time of Marbley’s motion for recusal. On appeal, he contends that the district court judge is personally biased and would not be able to provide Marbley with a fair trial. The denial of a motion to recuse is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824, 829 (5th Cir. 2007). Marbley fails to show an abuse of discretion. See id. Marbley does not otherwise substantively brief a challenge to the district court’s bases for dismissing the other claims he raised in the district court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, he has abandoned the claims on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th