Whether magistrate judge shopping violates the 14th Amendment due process when district court judges with financial interests allow defendants to manipulate judicial assignment and both judges refuse disqualification

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986) “quoting “Page 475 U. S. 831 The participation of a judge who has a substantial interest in the outcome of a case of which they know at the time they participate necessarily imports a bias into the deliberative process. This deprives litigants of the assurance of impartiality that is the fundamental requirement of due process. The Questions Presented: (1) Whether magistrate Judge shopping violates the 14th. Amendment of the U.S. Constitution of due process when a district court judge knowing that they and their spouse have a financial interest in a case allows defendants and a defendants indemnifying insurance company to hand pick a magistrate judge by having the Pro Se docket manager illegally manually change the random court assignment to a different magistrate judge and the magistrate judge and their spouse also have a known financial interest in the outcome of a case and both judges refuse to disqualify ? (2) Whether Collateral Estoppel (issue preclusion) applies to new evidence in a current suit brought in Federal Court under Diversity of Citizenship jurisdiction under New York law CPLR 214-C two injury rule for a latent separate and distinct disease (Silicosis) in which the PetitionerPlaintiff was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to provide Expert testimony as to causation in a previous suit as to the newly diagnosed latent separate and distinct disease (silicosis) that was diagnosed after the judgment was already entered in the previous Federal Court Diversity of Citizenship jurisdiction case ?