Whether a lower court's vexatious litigant order violates due process rights and is immediately appealable

Petition to review a "constitutional question". Petitioner contends that the lower court ’s decision has incorrectly interpreted or applied a provision of the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment to due process raising a significant legal issue that needs clarification from the highest court to ensure consistent application across different jurisdictions! essentially requesting the Supreme Court to decide whether a law or action by a lower court aligns with the Constitution.(1) The Due Process Clause provides that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an unbiased decision-maker. A hearing that meets due process standards must ordinarily be held prior to the deprivation.(2) (3) Is a deprivation order appealable prior to a final judgment in the case? (4) Is a deprivation order a final order and automatically appealable? Is an order or judgment immediately appealable that is not in compliance with the 14th Amendment right to due process, or when the order has a constitutional deficiency of the post-deprivation process?(5) (6) Is the order immediately/ automatically appealable, which takes away your right to file court documents or enter into a courthouse/ court office? Whether an appeals court denies a plaintiffs right to appeal a restrictive filing order/ confinement order during a critical stage of proceedings violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.(7) ii Disagreement Among Lower Courts : The majority of lower Courts have decisions that an appeal can be automatically taken from restrictive filing orders/ vexatious litigant orders. Laws should be applied uniformly in the United States. If decisions in lower courts conflict, then the Supreme Court may issue a decision applicable to all the courts.(8) (9) Reversible Legal Error: Was the Lower Court decision not to allow the Petitioner to appeal a vexatious litigant order, confinement order, or restrictive filing order incorrect? (10) Whether a lower court ’s decision on an important matter conflicts with a decision of another lower court. (11) Whether the court of appeal ’s decision is far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings. (12) Whether the state court has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with another state court or a federal court. (13) Whether state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of first impression that should be settled by the Supreme Court. (14) Whether a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter,' has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power. (15) Whether a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the Ill decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals. (16) Whether a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. (17) Whether the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the split of state and federal courts split of authority as to whether a vexatious litigant order is automatically/ immediately an appealable order. (18) Whether the decision of the Kansas Appeals Court as and Kansas Supreme Court would conflict with another decision by another federal or state appellant court.