Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violated due process and constitutional rights by improperly dismissing a complaint and denying an en banc hearing through alleged procedural misconduct

No question identified. : STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 13 (1-5), this Court follows these wellaccepted principles underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), which is the statutory authority for a judge of this Court or the Supreme Court to grant a stay/extension pending certiorari. Also, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 42 and Marshall v. Marshall (May 1, 2006) 547 U.S. 293, 298-299. JUDGEMENTS: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Judgements filed January 10, 2024, and January 26, 2024 (attached as Exhibits 1 and 2). On approximately 5-6 days after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Granted Extension of Time to File Certiorari (January 4, 2024); extended the date to February 24, 2024. On January 10, 2024, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued Orders denying the Petitioners’ En Banc petition for hearing and objection to (2) Two Judge quorum. On January 26, 2024, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued Orders indicating, “The order warned that failure to comply would result in the automatic dismissal of the by the Clerk for failure to prosecute, without further notice and regardless of other filings.” Sounds like a pre-Magna Carta ruling. ORIGINAL TIME TO FILE: The original time to file the subject Certiorari was December 26, 2023, for case for case # 22-55678, see Exhibit 3. The Petitioners requested a sixty (60) day extension, which would have been February 24:, 2024 respectively, computed from December 26, 2023. See Exhibit 3, Filed September 27, 2023. On January 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the Petitioners’ requested extension. Six (6) days later, on January 10, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners’ Petition for Hearing En Banc, on the instant matter. According to Supreme Court Rule 13.3, “{Bjut if a petition for rehearing is timely filed in the lower court by any party, or if the lower court appropriately entertains an untimely petition for rehearing or sua sponte considers rehearing, the time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari for all parties (whether or not they requested rehearing or joined in the petition for rehearing) runs from the date of the denial of rehearing or, if rehearing is granted the subsequent entry of judgment.” JUSTIFICATION FOR OF EXTENSION OF TIME: Presently, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is attempting to deny the Petitioner’ the right to a fair hearing, as the District Court Clerk, Renico Smith held the Petitioner’s complaint in his personal possession for approximately six (6) days before filing. The Court, in the person of Judge Klausner, Dismissed the complaint, with the knowledge that Renico Smith did not file the complaint, but held the from filing for approximately six days. Thus, Judge Klausner willingly colluded with Record Tampering initiated by Clerk Smith, and used that criminal behavior has the ground and reason to dismiss the Petitioner’s timely complaint. Such renders the Order void, according to FRCP 60. Which gives the Petitioner the right to challenge said order until it is corrected. Also, the 9 Circuit has assigned the same illegal quorum, assigned to Petitioner’s Civil Rights case (21-56157) to the instant matter. This assignment exposes next level corruption and vitriol acted against the Petitioner, without cause. Also, as may be apparent, the 9'» Circuit has acted multiple acts of contempt of court, in acting to proceed dismiss a matter that is currently within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. See Exhibits 1 through 3. Additionally, the Petitioner must contend with looting of the Ethel Ellington Living Trust which has been occurring while the matter has been before the United States District Court, the 9'* Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. The 9 Circuits acts of contempt must be addressed. Thus, the Petitioner is attempting to p