Does a state trial court violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it enters final summary judgment without holding the announced hearing, and does a state appellate court violate due process by issuing a per curiam affirmed decision that contradicts its own prior published opinion?

The circumstances following the presented questions, creates two constitutional questions under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: 1. Deprivation of hearing and procedural exclusion. Does a state trial court violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it enters final summary judgment without holding the hearing it expressly announced, and without considering a duly filed cross-motion for summary judgment? And is this constitutional violation compounded where the self-represented litigant is denied access to the State ’s mandatory electronic scheduling system, thereby preventing him from obtaining the promised hearing? 2. Judicial contradiction and absence of reasoning: Does a state appellate court violate due process when it issues a per curiam affirmed (“PCA ”) decision without written opinion that directly contradicts its own prior published opinion in the same case —without any new facts, explanation, or justification —thus eliminating meaningful appellate review and undermining the rule of law?