Whether a federal judge's refusal to recuse violates constitutional due process rights under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and the Fourteenth Amendment

1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), federal judges are statutorily disqualified from hearing cases whenever their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The Supreme Court held that disqualification was required as a matter of constitutional due process in multiple precedents. Why could Connecticut federal district judge Victor A. Bolden illegally and unconstitutionally deny recusal in violation of Supreme Court precedent? 2. Whether the circuit court should recognize the interlocutory appeal as a “substantial legal control issue ” that prevents a statutorily and constitutionally unqualified judge from continuing to hear the case, and exercise jurisdiction to grant an immediate interim review, when an aggrieved party challenges a judge ’s refusal to disqualify? or Whether an appeal by an aggrieved party challenges a judge's refusal to disqualify should be automatically defined as a complaint alleging a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability that interferes with the performance of their judicial duties, and processed under The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980( “Act ’), 28 U.S.C. § 351-364, and the Rules for JudicialConduct and JudicialDisability Proceedings( “Rule ”), as amended on March 12,2019. l U Did the Second Circuit's sua sponte dismiss appellate review of an aggrieved party challenges a judge's refusal to disqualify and denying appellant's reconsideration without any explanation violate the equal rights and due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? 3. Whether an aggrieved party may seek to vacate the orders without time limits under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 when the orders were issued by lower judges not following the Constitution, the statutes and rules made by Congress. Are there a large number of unqualified judges in the Second Circuit and Connecticut District Courts who have entered the federal judiciary through affirmative action and DEI racial quotas, unconstitutionally and illegally discriminating against litigants, hindering citizens' access to equal justice, and blocking “the normal the appellate review progress ” recently proposed by chief Justice Roberts? 2 AH PARTIES Dongmei Li, Plaintiff Appellant, Petitioner V. Li v. RichardPeckish; American Medical Response, Inc.; MacKenzie D”Lorio; St. Vincent ’s Medical Center; and the Town of Fairfield. Defendants Appellees Respondents. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ET AL, Defendants 3