Whether the Ninth Circuit has continued to deny Due Process by applying a categorical argument waiver rule to pro se appellants, and whether the Ninth Circuit amended a pre-filing review order in a manner that denied Due Process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit has continued : to deny Due Process by applying a purportedly categorical, Ramirez: Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 858, 875 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), argument waiver / forfeiture rule allegedly supported by Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d ; 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) to hundreds of pro se appellants, a-la the secret policy in Schexnayder v. Vannoy, 140 S. Ct. 354 ; ; (U.S. 2019) (Sotomayor, J.), even after the en banc Brown v. Arizona, 82 F. 4th 863, 873 (9th Cir. 2023) embraced this Court’s reasoning in Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534 (1992)? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit amended the original pre-filing review order (which was the subject of the certiorari petition No. 22-648) in a manner that denied Lukashin Due Process by failing to provide notice or opportunity to be heard in opposition, representing a departure “from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings... to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory _ power” under Rule 10(a). : i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit has continued : to deny Due Process by applying a . purportedly categorical, RamirezAlejandre v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 858, 875 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), argument waiver / forfeiture rule allegedly , supported by Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) to hundreds of pro se appellants, a-la the secret policy __ ; in Schexnayder v. Vannoy, 140 S. Ct. 354 (U.S. 2019) (Sotomayor, J.), even after the en banc Brown v. Arizona, 82 F. 4th 863, 873 (9th Cir. 2023) embraced this Court’s : reasoning in Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534 (1992)? : 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit amended the . original pre-filing review order (which was the subject of the certiorari petition . No. 22-648) in a manner that denied Lukashin Due Process by failing to provide notice or opportunity to be heard in opposition, representing a departure “from the accepted and usual course of . judicial proceedings... to call for an , exercise of this Court’s supervisory power” under Rule 10(a).