Whether a U.S. District Court can apply Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel to a void State Court judgment and deny due process rights in a federal civil rights case

No question identified. : *• .•ftjfee-l#. SL SgpfCggSS QMigSIKM^mitedtfegt a&M&MM ti©nai ly• jjgrtiiimo. Sltegg.Cgsgsrt ..IfaiirijgggneMft jwwaaatvfr. fee give® preclusive effect in Fe4eiai C©wt wfart is petitioners fepdroeour.se when fee II. S. Waters District Gssst of Louisiana grants Judgement based on Res jsdkate and Collateral Estoppel applied m m void State Court j&fopfrosss and refuses -to grant relief? ■DM foe -U J8. FilMk C«eMt CmM of AppeMs C@wf violate PeriMessers 5fe Amendment -fee proofs rights uta it inisrepiesenfted a material in its judgement? 'DM Use IIS. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Couitviolate Peffiooeris 5® Amendment doe process ri^b£s. afteer petitioner cited, parts of-iie 'ffieadnt«pped S. ^pe^'Gooifsjtt^enat and espies controversy? Can foe LI. S. Fiffla Circuit Court of Appeals xiie feat a!! ©fpefifiouers claims of femawfo, is jber appJiea&os hostile wmkmg affgawneat, harassnKnt, disparate treatment asM vicarious 'liability arowifoin -foe jjurisdktliau oftheLooisiMS State Cm! Service ufoes fee LouMam Supreme Court ‘has .ruled feat fee Louisiana State Cm! Sssmm does not have pds&ln ofpefoiooex ’js Ssoisnlkio ittnsS if the Louisiana Commission on Human 8 igMs. was egg-afefri to »ffi»S«»afa» claims <nf discrimination., embodied mUteLUo.^ffCivil Rights Act ofI964(TMeVB), canaCS. District Court Res Judicata Is -a Lomaaia State Civil Service Commission riergrim^ judicially reviewed, when fee State of Louisiana Civil Service Commission ’s defiailMn «f d»a»riroi»»Mrf«M» rises neither mimjrmsr is aslnogdasfMe ¥11 effoe Civil Rights Ad ®H964? Did the District courtviolate Perifesners 5“ Amendment due process of fee IfiL ConstitnticH *®heu. tt refused to grand: rat^te a void judgement and hear Petitioners argument kte Motion to «t -aupfied -Res Jbificabtol Colfetesai Esto{pd to a and State .Court judgement? Can a State Court, of Appeal judgement be srigect to Res judicata in federal' court, vtbeo tie State Court of A|3peds fells to issue ^ -decision sfofesssing PsMi-ossrs fedfcof due pose® ekira ? When a Slate Atototote agency is aopoided jpfleisS deference, kjotod review poeeedhags, tosed -on its «m Maito^ftosMsiM, ran Its judgmeuts fee rased-to pedude Htle'¥H claims in a Federal Comf? Was Petitioners 14®-and 5® amendment Die: Process violated' when Res Judicata was applied to a State Court dedsfon, upholding m adatostowe 's&sscfs appeal process M denied -petitioner -prior nerioeof reasons for -the action taken? If foeLJ.S. District Court grosted sissmar^jcdgement and feat fee-partiesare the same, in the District Const, was privy of parties and -virtual roproseMuifem properly before foe II.S..Appeals Court?race 2 SJSrOPMEIiES. AH appear m fee eaptiraa ©ffifee ease aa Use cover page ■RELATED-CASES Ashley Maisem. SMe of Ijadjsfeaa, BeparCmem afPesMkr Safety asadCkMestkais, James M» LeBl^kd&ialG^aatf, Na32i-CV-24l9 >U.'S. Louisiaaa. JadgemeM catescd May 1.0,21X23 Mottos 68(B) <feaed ©a July 17, 2023 Ashley Mase vs. Stale .©f Loaisisim. Department ©f .PyMic Safety and Corrections. lasses M. LeBlanc, in 'LL S. Cowf ©fAj^eiife ler the Fifth CM; Jadgesiiesf esferai October ML 2024. Metiers. figPass! Rdi^iiag dssled l^ovember 25,2024. 3 i. OPINIONS BELOW M JURISDICTION .9 • CONSTITUTIONAL AND S1ATUIGM¥ PROVISIONS-. INVOLVED. 10SMSff' OF-THECASE. .11-13 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE" WRIT. 14-25. -GONGMJSfON. .25 EfDEX'TO APPEMMCES