Whether procedural technicalities and digital filing complications can constitute a due process violation warranting equitable tolling in federal court proceedings

No question identified. : JUDY C. PERCIVAL, PO Box 100528 Palm Bay, Florida Krupek 1999@vyahoo.com 407-272-7607 ‘To the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit. I am the Petitioner Judy Christian Percival, whose prayer request is for a 60 day extension of time, to and including September 4, 2025, in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In support of this request, I respectfully submit the following: 1.On June 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Citcuit issued a ‘NOT PRECEDENTIAL’ Judgment in my case. It does not comport with the United States Supreme Court fair hearings for due process (Attached 1). The bases of respective decisions from the New York State Division of Human Rights to the ‘Third Circuit have been based on " ... faulty historical analysis ...", as cited in your Honor's Opinion; Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 US (2022). Petitioner seeks an oppottunity to address the falsehoods in Judgment, right the wrongs; and represent those who are denied justice because they ‘selfrepresent’, out of necessity. Incontrovertible evidence will show concerted efforts were made to impugn the veracity of Petitioner's Briefs. Due process was ignored to skew the outcome of this case at each level. Obvious falschoods by three different Defense Counsels were overlooked in order to attive at the conclusion favorable to the Respondents. Moreover, the issue of wrong address does not make sense; it is not the case of a wrong physical address. The digital footprint shows that my complaint was at the Southern District of New York on 1/25/23. It ts not beyond the scope of the Coutts’ collective intellect to analyze and make proper application of the evidence provided by the digital footprint. This was inherent from the beginning of the case. This should not be qualified by the Third Ciecuit of Appeals Court’ as: (Attached 1) Footnote 6 page 4; ‘This also contradicts The Presiding Judge’s opinion that he made the (wrong) assumption that I was submitting the same information on June 11, 2024 Judgment, and rushed to dismiss the case. Ie rushed to dismiss the case with the knowledge that Twas submitting clear and concise technical information, the next day. It 1s not the issue of ‘wrong Court; wrong time’; the issue was that the file was too large to be uploaded. However, the acceptable file dimension was not indicated by the Clerk's office until, the second submission. The presiding Judge made the case for equitable tolling, if the file/complaint was at the wrong ‘address’, but also timely filed. Incontrovertible evidence will show that the Southern District of New York erred in not providing the size dimension in instruction packet; that the underscore symbol in the e-mail address was obscured by the line that ran concurrently with the address; that it can benefit all users by minor change to distinguish clearly between the two; and that the complaint file was actually at the right place at the tight time. This is evidenced by Clerk at the SDNY’s admission that the file was too large to be uploaded. I did not make a duplicitous argument for equitable tolling. Since the presiding Judge deemed equitable tolling to be applicable at right time, wrong address; my parallel atgument is that, since the SDNY’s digital address is not physical, but technical and the complaint file was actually present at the SDNY; my complaint file was at the right ‘address’, at the right time. The use of technology ts provided by the Court; and thus, should be acceptable in all circumstances. ‘There is much mote evidence to be submitted; for example, the date of filing was changed from 1:23 — 1303 SDNY to 2:23 — 03993 EDPA by the Defense Counsel and the EDPA; and Attorney Donnelly Bush attempted to correct, what was clearly a mistake, the date that she entered in Amended Complaint: February 10, 2023. She was not allowed to do