Whether a court can issue a stay order to change a summons response deadline under Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 or due process of law, and whether a void judgment necessitates a writ of certiorari

Whether bombing courts or shooting judges is a holy mission to counter a corrupt judicial system? That is a satire to ridicule the Courts below if a corrupt judicial system is on the other side of God for God to clean up. It is uncertain how other Circuits did their job. However, in the Third Circuit, the proceeding is nothing but a game for a big guy. It is not a baseless accusation. The Courts below only issued orders against Petitioner regardless of the laws and records. They even issued per curiam orders, contravening precedents, to rule against Petitioner; how could a Court issue a per curiam order in contravenance with precedent? Also, to rule against Petitioner, the Courts below did not comply with procedural rules. For example, the main controversy in this proceeding is the determination of the answer deadline for defendants to respond to the summons. Determining the answer deadline is a fundamental determination common in every case. However, in this action, the Courts below did not determine the answer deadline but let defense counsels do no matter what defense counsels wanted. Does this system deserve trust? There was a controversy; the defendants disagreed that the answer deadline existed. If so, the courts below should decide on it, especially the answer deadline, based on which defendants should respond to the summons in a timely manner. Then, the litigation could move on. However, the Courts below never decided on the answer deadline but kept the controversy remained in controversy. Because the defendants did not respond to the summons, the (ii) proceeding could not advance except for a request for entry of default judgment. The District Court also never decided on the request for entry of default judgment but let the time pass in vain. When the summons had been severed on defendants for fourplus years, and a request for entry of default was pending, the District Court sua sponte ordered Petitioner to amend the Complaint. Have any legal professionals even heard that a District Court sua sponte ordered the plaintiff to amend his Complaint when the defendant failed to respond to the summons that was served on the defendant four-plus years ago and a request for entry of default was pending? Defendants' failure to respond to the summons was the defendants' problem. The District Court never issued an order against the defendants but issued an order to torture Petitioner. In the entire proceeding, the District Court never issued an order against the defendants; on the contrary, the District Court did not enforce procedural rules but let the defense counsel do no matter what the defense counsel wanted. For example, after the summons had been severed on defendants for four-plus years, the District Court allowed defense counsels to file a pre-answer motion without a post-deadline extension. How could the District Court give defendants the privilege not to comply with the procedural rules? There was other reckless conduct by the District Court. For example, the school district did not move to dismiss all claims and did not answer the claim that the school district did not move to dismiss. After the summons had been served on the defendants about seven years ago and a request for entry of (iii) default was pending, the District Court sua sponte dismissed the claim that the school district did not move to dismiss and answer. Have any legal professionals even heard that a District Court sua sponte dismissed a claim that the defendant failed to defend and answer when a request for entry of default was pending? Is it ridiculous that the District Court sua sponte dismissed the claim, not because of lack of jurisdiction when a request for entry of default was pending? In the entire proceeding, the Courts below just issued orders against Petitioner regardless of the laws and records. Rational people would wonder if this judicial system works. However, the controversy raised a Constitutional issue: the judgment the Courts below