Whether a motion to vacate the court of appeals judgment is proper when the court of appeals defied its prior decision on the definition of a 'shotgun pleading' but affirmed the dismissal citing that same deficient pleading standard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether a motion to vacate the court of appeals Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(8), 60(b)(6), 60(d) and 28 USC 144 is proper when the court of appeals defies its decision in Inform Inc. v. Google LLC. et, al (11* Cir. Aug 26, 2022) on the court’s connotation of a “shotgun pleading” but affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss petitioner’s case citing a “shotgun pleading” when petitioner’s clarified allegations along with documented evidence were pled in (3) lower courts previous to the Court of Appeals and clearly detailed respondents’ twice ‘willful’ violation of petitioner’s ‘Automatic Stay’, and respondents filing then prevailing in an eviction lawsuit entirely during an open federal housing ‘retaliation’ investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development while using illicit business names to do so, constitutes complicit bias and “extraordinary circumstances”. (2) Whether acts carried out by respondents to evict a tenant comprised of employing an illegal business names to twice petition and lift her bankruptcy ‘Automatic Stay’ to ‘pursue’ eviction, file an unlawful detainer lawsuit, and granted an ‘Unlawful Detainer and Writ of Possession Order’ also under the disguise of unlawful business designations during an open federal housing investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are considered ‘willful acts of malice’ and whether the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development can be held liable for ‘gross negligence’ exclusive any effort to ‘proactively adhere and apply’ all federal and state housing laws to guard a tenant upon ‘notification’ from that tenant of landlord retaliatory acts and eviction after a tenant has filed a federal housing complaint but also during an open federal housing investigation and are violations of the 42 Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. IV), considered negligence, ‘fraud on the court’ and violation of the, 5? Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. V)., 11 USC 362(a)(3), 11 USC 362(k)(1), Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 USC 3610(e)(1), 42 USC 3613 Section 813(c)(1)(2), 24 CFR 100.400(c)(5)(6), 24 CFR 24 CFR 103.500(a)(b), 24 CFR 115.2049b)(1)(i), and the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act Section 35-9A-142. (3) Whether the lower court(s) abused its discretion on decisions in favor of the respondents, demonstrated “grave injustice” and (complicit) judicial bias prior to petitioner’s eviction date and federal housing investigation closure date by denying petitioner relief permissible under “Due Process” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV), 42 USC 3610(e)(1), and in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and 28 USC 144. i ‘