Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state court to retroactively convert a dismissal through a nunc pro tunc order after its plenary jurisdiction has expired

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state court —after its plenary jurisdiction has expired —to use a nunc pro tunc order to retroactively convert a dismissal for want of prosecution into a dismissal “with prejudice, ”a substantive judicial change that Texas law forbids after jurisdiction ends. 2. Whether attorney abandonment —established through disciplinary proceedings and occurring without withdrawal or notice —constitutes “cause ” that cannot be attributed to the litigant under this Court ’s precedent, including Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012). 3. Whether due process permits a dispositive hearing to proceed during attorney abandonment, where counsel actively prevented the litigant from communicating with the court (App. 28) and no transcript exists to permit appellate review. 4. Whether due process and meaningful appellate review are denied when a dispositive hearing proceeds with ho court reporter because local policy requires litigants to privately hire and pay for one, resulting in the complete absence of a record for appeal. 5. Whether executing an eviction judgment while a related appeal is pending violates the Fourteenth Amendment ’s guarantees of due process and access to the courts.