Whether a Rule 59(e) motion can be converted to a summary judgment motion when evidence outside pleadings is presented and whether judicial actions violated due process and equal protection rights

Bowling Green ignored Qiu ’s application for its chemistry teaching open for which Qiu possessed the excellence of chemistry Praxis. Qiu sued Bowling Green under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on her race, color, and national origin. Qiu responded to the motion to dismiss with evidence. After the dismissal of her complaint, Qiu found the interviewed Salyer who failed chemistry Praxis heavily was white online. Qiu put her found in her 59(e) motion to alter the dismissal order. The district court denied Qiu ’s 59(e) motion and dismissed the complaint. The 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Question 1. Should a plaintiffs response to the motion to dismiss be converted to a summary motion when some of the evidence are “the matters outside the pleadings ”? Question 2. Can a Rule 59(e) motion of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure function as a summary motion when setting up prima facie? Question 3. Can a sanction motion be denied based on other decisions instead of the facts and laws in the sanction motion? Question 4. Did the judges violate Qiu ’s Constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the laws in Section 1 of Amendment XIV? Were the judges against the Rule of Law? i LIST OF PROCEDURE Wei Qiu v. Board of Education of Bowling Green Independent Schools, KY, 1:22 cv 00062, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Judgment entered on 03/02/23; 59(e) motion was denied on 03/20/24. Wei Qiu v. Board of Education of Bowling Green Independent Schools, KY, 24-5368, U. S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Judgment entered on Dec. 23, 2024; Petition to rehear to the en banc was denied on Jan. 30, 2025. ii