1. Whether federal abstention doctrines bar § 1983 claims challenging a state court default judgment entered without constitutionally adequate notice under *Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.*, 339 U.S. 306 (1950), and without personal jurisdiction, when state appellate courts have dismissed all appeals and no state forum remains available to vindicate federal constitutional rights.

2. Whether *Sprint Communications Inc. v. Jacobs*, 571 U.S. 69 (2013), permits federal courts to apply Younger abstention to § 1983 claims challenging purely administrative acts by court clerks (document alteration and withholding), rather than ongoing state judicial proceedings.

3. Whether notice of a remote court proceeding that omits required access information (Zoom credentials) satisfies the Due Process Clause's requirement of notice "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties," *Mullane*, 339 U.S. at 314.

4. Whether a state college-contribution statute violates the Due Process Clause by authorizing judicial proceedings in the absence of a justiciable controversy between the parties, *Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.*, 770 N.E.2d 177, 185 (Ill. 2002), and whether the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when the defendant offered full contribution through a 529 college savings plan [SA2], the plaintiff rejected those offers, and no genuine dispute existed requiring judicial resolution, thereby rendering the judgment void, *Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional de Produccion de Costa Rica*, 614 F.2d 1247, 1256 (9th Cir. 1980).

Whether federal abstention doctrines bar § 1983 claims challenging a state court default judgment entered without constitutionally adequate notice and without personal jurisdiction when state appellate courts have dismissed all appeals