Whether the district court improperly dismissed a pro se plaintiff's administrative law claims challenging the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and OCR investigation procedures without proper jurisdictional analysis

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2016, Petitioner Mark Bochra, a Christian Coptic suffered various forms of discrimination with retaliation including (assault, battery, and threatened to be killed by Michael Roy : Guttentag) at Florida Coastal School of Law after reporting discrimination to the dean of the law school (1:21-cv-03887 ECF No. 54 page 29-30 & Exhibit 18); see 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs, including the procedural regulations for Title IX, 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.1-106.71; Title VI, 34 C.F.R. § 100.7; and Section 504, 34 C-F.R. §§ 104.11-104.14 and 104.61. As a result, Petitioner filed an OCR Complaint against the law school; his complaint was opened for an investigation by OCR Atlanta. During the course of the investigation Mark was also discriminated and retaliated against by OCR leadership, mainly Melanie Velez the former director of OCR Atlanta and Kenneth Marcus the former OCR Secretary. Mark’s OCR complaint went from a resolution agreement and the next step is ’ enforcement action if a resolution is failed to be signed by the recipient to OCR tempering with witnesses and the evidence, and dismissal of the OCR complaint after Petitioner filed several complaints with OIG DOE (whistleblower protection); first OIG DOE complaint was pertaining to OCR Atlanta and it was handled by special agent Nei] Sanchez and many complaints were later filed against Kenneth Marcus with different government agencies when Kenneth Marcus tried to implement the IHRA definition without congress approving the use of such definition; acting on behalf of Israel as an agent without registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); betraying America and what its constitution stands for; Kenneth Marcus did this in his official and individual capacity (evil motive). The district court issued its final judgment dismissing Petitioner’s lawsuit with prejudice on September 12, 2022 in (ECF Nos. 84-85) by cancelling the scheduled hearing between the parties which was set on September 27, 2022. The totality of the District Court ruling was that it lacks jurisdiction to review Mark’s lawsuit and that the petitioner lack standing to challenge the THRA definition; a definition which injured Mark’s Coptic identity when it says “Jews didn’t kill | Jesus Christ” and it is used as a government endorsed view point discrimination on OCR ! website. Mark’s initial lawsuit was based on 6 counts; these counts were related to both the 2020 OCR Manual and the IHRA definition under the APA for injunctive and declaratory relief. The District Court failed to evaluate the injunctive relief against the IHRA definition sought in the initial lawsuit. The goal was “get rid of Mark and his case by any means possible”. 1) Count I: Violation of 5 USC Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seg.: Adoption of a Rule that is Not in Accordance with Law (for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief) 2) Count Il: Violation of 5 USC Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq. Adoption of the IHRA definition that is Arbitrary or Capricious (for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief) 3) Count III: Violation of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq.: Failure to comply with notice : and comment requirements (for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief) 4) Count IV: Unlawfully Withheld and Unreasonably Delayed Agency Action APA § 706(1) 5) Count V: Arbitrary and Capricious Final Agency Action APA § 706(2) 6) Count VI: Procedural due Process — U.S. Const. Amend. 5 t “I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ Mark timely appealed, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). See also FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and 62.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1. The 7” Circuit Court of Appeals on its own has consolidated both appeals 22-2903 and 23-1388. The second appeal 23-1388 was related to the threats of Jim Richmond. During a Judicial Misconduct proceeding in Nos. 07-2290048 through 90041, a supervisor from the 7” Circuit under the name Jim Richmond — told Ma