Whether judicial immunity bars all relief —including injunctive or
declaratory relief —where state judges acted in the clear absence of
jurisdiction and where a state judicial commission later sanctioned one judge
for denying due-process.

b) Whether U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1 due process and equal
protection guarantees were violated when state Administrative
Regional Judge 's Wheless presided over summary judgment
hearing —without lawful assignment —after prior recusal in
related procedure, directed the clerk to reject Petitioner 's
answer, and despite lack of statutorily required twenty-one-day
hearing notice, issued a permanent, state-wide injunction
barring Petitioner 's to be employed in her lawful profession.

2. Whether state judges are disqualified —after a finding by a state judicial
oversight body —or via acting lacking jurisdiction and with clear bias, thereby
rendering judges orders void under the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. Whether appeal not taken in good faith and categorizing Petitioner 's
constitutional claims as "frivolous " was warranted because the claims
challenged judicial rulings and despite pleading sufficiency and plausibility.

4. Whether a federal district and appellate court may summarily dismiss a
pro se 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action as "frivolous " against judicial officers without
conducting meaningful de novo review of magistrate recommendations,
contrary to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Rule 72(b)(3) and this Court 's precedent.

5. Whether a Fifth Circuit erred in holding that the district court 's sua sponte
dismissal was implicit denial not requiring a ruling on Motion for Recusal
and Motion for Change of Venue.

6. Whether appointment of counsel was unwarranted when Petitioner had filed
multiple pleadings but had obtained no relief or justice despite ten years of
diligent efforts in exceptional, rare, complex constitutional case presents no
non-frivolous issues for appeal, in conflict with this Court 's precedents on
access to courts and fundamental fairness.

7. Whether the state and federal judicial officers actions are so egregious and
outrageous in blatantly and repeatedly violating Petitioner 's constitutional
rights that they shock the conscience.

Whether judicial immunity bars all relief, including injunctive or declaratory relief, where state judges acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction and violated due process and equal protection guarantees, and whether federal courts may summarily dismiss pro se § 1983 actions as frivolous without meaningful de novo review