Whether the Supreme Court should grant a writ of certiorari to correct the Third Circuit's denial of a mandamus petition and order the district court to issue a Rule 16 Scheduling Order, recuse the magistrate judge, and comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

On October 3,2023, Petitioner David Ryan Kauffman (“Mr. Kauffman ”) filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Corrections Defendants and Psychiatry Defendants, alleging physical and sexual abuse, retaliation, torture tactics (involving deprivation of water), interferences with legal mail, denial of medical care, and indefinite solitary confinement in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections —in violation of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (See Complaint in Case No. 3:23-cv-239). To date 22 months have elapsed since the filing of that civil action, and the district court has refused to schedule a jury trial or discovery period under Rule 16, Fed. R. Civ. P., without providing good cause or any reason whatsoever for this 22-month delay, other than that Mr. Kauffman ’s request for a Rule 16 Scheduling Order is “meaningless. ” (App. at la). In the meantime, Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto has recommended dismissal of cognizable retaliation claims in this case on the grounds that Mr. Kauffman ’s engagement in Constitutionally protected conduct was “blackmail ” that the defendants could “resist ” by denying Mr. Kauffman necessary medical care. (App. at 7a). In this case, the district court thus far has disregarded almost every relevant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, including Mr. Kauffman ’s right to file an amended complaint under Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P. (App. at 8a-lla). Mr. Kauffman then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Third Circuit Court 2 of Appeals, requesting that the Third Circuit order the district court to (1) issue a Rule 16 Scheduling Order and jury trial, (2) recuse Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto, and (3) accept Mr. Kauffman ’s proposed first-amended complaint. (See Case No. 251619). The Third Circuit denied that petition for a writ of mandamus. (App. at 12a16a). The questions presented here are whether this Court should grant this petition for a writ of certiorari correcting the Third Circuit ’s denial of Mr. Kauffman ’s petition for a writ of mandamus filed under Case No. 25-1619, or in the alternative grant a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to issue a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (and thus a jury trial and discovery period) for Case No. 3:23-cv239; to recuse Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto for promoting unconstitutional retaliation against Mr. Kauffman and accusing Mr. Kauffman of “blackmail ” for his engagement in Constitutionally protected conduct; and ordering the district court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals to act in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instead of persistently violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Mr. Kauffman ’s right to file his proposed first-amended complaint and to have a jury trial and discovery period scheduled through a Rule 16 Scheduling Order. 3