Whether conflicting interlocutory orders from two district court judges violate a pro se litigant's constitutional rights and judicial procedural consistency

This petition arises from conflicting interlocutory orders issued by two district court (U.S . Dist. Ct. E.D. Pa.) judges in the same cases, creating significant procedural and constitutional concerns. These cases involve two federal questions (Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRAJ and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [MMWAJ ). In the beginning, Retired Hon. Judge Eduardo C. Robreno admitted the Pro Se Petitioner ’s narrative statements and evidence for use as direct testimony for jury trial, recognizing the procedural accommodation necessary for a Pro Se litigant. However, the newly assigned Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert subsequently deleted / struck the same evidence, reversing prior orders and depriving the Petitioner of essential tools to present his case. These conflicting rulings, compounded by the denial of 3d Cir. review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, raise critical questions about judicial consistency and the uniform application of federal questions (FCRA & MMWA) evidence presentation. Immediate intervention by this Court is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the Petitioner at jury trial This is the only remedy. The questions presented are: 1. Whether conflicting interlocutory orders from two district court judges, one admitting and the other deleting the pro se litigant ’s narrative statements content & evidence, raise significant pro se constitutional rights violation and judicial procedure consistency concerns for fairness. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, are conflicting decisions BEFORE final decision in cases involving federal questions at district court an interlocutory decision appealable at the 3d Cir.?