Whether a federal court can apply preclusion principles to bar new claims when prior proceedings were not fully litigated

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Plaintiff, was represented by an attorney, Staci Childs. Staci Childs had the responsibility according to the United States District & Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Texas to , register with the court or seek permission of the Federal Judge, Gray Miller before whom the. case is pending prior the transition of cause to Judge Gray Miller and George C. Hanks. Plaintiff received Final Judgment, pursuant to the Motion to Dismiss submitted by Defendants in Dkt13 order to dismiss was denied with prejudice in cause, and Joint Management Discover Plan (26F) which was coordinated with Defendant, Transportation Communication Union/IAM, on behalf of Plaintiff in response to the Federal Docket on Pacer for cause 4:20-cv-0975 was provided as Staci Childs exited court proceedings via email after final dismissal of Plaintiff's appeal and complaint to State Bar of Texas. The United States District & Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan likewise joined in aligning sidebar . communication in the absence of attorney support via email outside of Federal Docket. Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan sent an email stating that Plaintiff did not have an attorney on * file, and Plaintiff quickly responded stating that she was under contract with counsel. Staci “a7 Child’s did not post any items to the Federal Docket, and provided confirmation to Pro Se in : heros Forma Pauperis Litigant, Aisha Wright, that she never said that she was NOT representing Aisha foo Wright in support documentation that was submitted to the Texas Bar Association. Attorney, an charged Plaintiff, $6000.00 for the submitted to the Federal Docket Joint Management and . Lh. Discovery Plan, which has been stricken from the record, and did not provide an itemized : a invoice with hourly rate and support documentation. Therefore; Defendant’s Motion and ar . Pleadings were accepted due to the fact that Plaintiffs could not respond after communicating to wh: the court in writing and verbally that she was being represented by an attorney under Texas law ; Furthermore, would the Presiding Judge(s) Gray Miller, Christina Bryan, and George C. Hanks ’ has provided Staci Childs permission to prosecute a Labor Law case with the Texas Bar Practices Areas of Criminal and Family in The United States District & Bankruptcy Court : Southern District of Texas under their court's decision, all in all causing the court toerrinthe =~ way to create an advantageous environment for the corporation. Southern District of Texas for Lower District failed in Erred by not hearing my case properly at all and used it to their advantage to have my case dismissed with prejudice to go unjust; whereas the Appellee claim Res Judicata of being litigated and it wasn’t never heard properly from the beginning? , Whether a plaintiff asserts new claims, can federal preclusion principles bar a defendant from raising defense that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the . parties? , The following questions are proposed: . > _ 1. Did the Fifth Circuit err in its reading of Gonzalez, given that five other Circuits read Gonzalez to allow Rule 60(b) motions to remedy a wide range of procedural defects in habeas proceedings, similar to the one alleged by Petitioner here? 2. If a presiding judge’s unfitness qualifies as the sort of “defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings” that would support a Rule 60(b) motion under Gonzalez, may a ; reviewing court in determining that motion consider the reasonableness of that judge’s prior disposition of the movant’s claims for relief? . 3. Did the Fifth Circuit, which to date has never identified any debatable issue in any postconviction appeal by a death-sentenced federal prisoner, err indenyingaCOA . concerning the district court’s application of Gonzalez to Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion? 3 ; ;