Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing courts to cease adjudicating cases involving judicial misconduct and disability rights violations

I. Judicial Integrity & Structural Recusal 1. Structural Conflict of Interest Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Courts within its jurisdiction, and state courts under its appellate supervision to immediately cease adjudicating cases in which their own courts, judicial officers, or staff are named as parties or have been credibly accused of constitutional, statutory, or treaty violations, without disqualification —in violation of the Due Process Clause and mandatory disqualification rules under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 144. 2. Disqualification Mandate for Conflicted Judges Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Courts within its jurisdiction, and state courts under its appellate supervision to disqualify all judges and court officials currently acting as defendants, respondents, or implicated parties in cases involving the same Petitioner, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a) and 144, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. Referral to DOJ / Civil Rights Division / Inspector General 2 Whether this Court should refer the documented pattern of judicial misconduct, systemic ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations, and deliberate indifference to serious harm —constituting deprivations of rights under color of law and conspiracy to interfere with federally protected rights —for criminal and civil rights review by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Departmental Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530B, 28 U.S.C. § 535, and the Executive ’s enforcement duties under Article II of the Constitution, and in light of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. II. Disability Rights & Procedural Access 4. Procedural Manipulation Against Disabled Litigants Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Courts within its jurisdiction, and state courts under its appellate supervision to immediately cease the use of procedural manipulation, delay, and denial —including, but not limited to, failure to rule on emergency or accommodation motions, imposition of arbitrary procedural limits, and refusal to docket complaints or service requests —as a mechanism to obstruct access to justice for disabled litigants, in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, the 3 Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794). 5. Uniform ADA Compliance in Courts Whether.a writ of mandamus should issue directing the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Courts within its jurisdiction, state courts under Ninth Circuit appellate review, and federal judicial conduct commissions to immediately and uniformly comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by conducting individualized interactive processes with qualified ADA experts, providing effective accommodations tailored to each litigant ’s disability, and refraining from issuing adverse rulings or imposing procedural barriers until lawful accommodations are provided, pursuant to the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12132), the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794), and the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Due Process Clause, and Articles 14 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 6. Restore Access to Service and Filing Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Courts within its jurisdiction, and their clerks and administrative arms to restore and guarantee access to complaint service, summons issuance, and docketing of 4 filings for Petitioners whose access has been blocked by Gender and ADA discrimination, court officials ’ obstruction, or unreasonable s