Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in sua sponte dismissal of a case without addressing multiple procedural irregularities including judicial conflicts, filing sequence, and recusal motions

A. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not addressing whether the district court should have first ruled on a motion for recusals about several conflict issues raised before issuing a sua sponte dispositive judgment. B. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not ruling the issuance of a sua sponte dispositive judgment irregularly out-of-sequence of all filings with the Clerk of Court records that retroactively captured prior filings to be deemed moot. C. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not considering Plaintiffs ’ appeal brief, including twenty-six (26) cases and twenty-eight (28) rules and statutes/ Acts in its decision since it only reiterated language authored by the district court, never specifically mentioned any arguments of Plaintiffs ’ and never cites any of Plaintiffs ’ supporting cases. D. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by ratifying the moot nature of a prior motion for recusals without considering the sequence of filings in the records held by the keeper of records, Clerk of Court, and that there was sufficient reason for the district court judge to recuse himself, based on customary conflicts of interests fisted, a bribery scheme involving real estate he fisted as his Homestead Exempted residence which steeply devalued on a redfin.com online price graph upon the time the district court case was filed which reversed to increase in value concurrent with the case being dismissed, sua sponte, and continued to increase so long as the case was remaining dismissed. E. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not determining the district court attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs ’ inherent rights to appeals in his sua sponte dismissal by stating the case was “CLOSED ” and this false allegation was evidence of his biases and the bribery scheme ensuing for his personal enrichments so long as he kept the case dismissed. F. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not ruling it was improper for the district court to avoid ruling on a recusals request which denial would become appealable. 2 G. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not identifying that the sua sponte dismissal was meant to be instrumental to interfere with Petitioners ’ rights to seek his disqualification after he refused to voluntarily recuse himself. H. .Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in alleging the case was ‘frivolous ’ and worthy of being dismissed without a prior memorandum allowing for the supplementation of any facts to assist with deter minin g its seriousness. I. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in alleging the case was implausible to be able to be proven due to the lack of a foundation. J. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concurring the case was not filed in good faith and in forma pauperis was denied after the appellate brief was filed; whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not allowing the good faith appellate brief to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis as a bona fide case under review; and whether the Fifth Circuit erred by denying an ability to proceed in forma pauperis based on the low-income low-asset financial status of Petitioners.* *There are ‘deceased ’ Petitioners whose interests do not qualify for statutory estates to be probated; however, have rights for their financial estates to be ‘made whole ’, financially, through a court proceeding. K. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by alleging Plaintiffs had an obligation to ‘plead her best case ’ before the sua sponte dismissal was issued without any prior notice. L. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not reversing the case to the district court with a determination the recusals motion is not moot and should be either deter mined that the recusal of the judge is granted or required to be ruled upon after being remanded. 3