Whether the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments permit state actors to engage in repeated retaliatory arrests, physical abuse, and obstruction of court access without judicial recourse or intervention

No question identified. : Life-or-Death Emergency: Appellant faces ongoing detention, harassment, obstruction of court access, and abuse, creating an imminent threat to life and physical safety. Prior multiple arrests, physical attacks, shots at my vehicles with firearms, and repeated attempts on Appellant’s life—demonstrate that the risk of irreparable harm is immediate and severe. Courts recognize that threats to life constitute the highest form of irreparable harm. (Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009); Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002)). Appellant requests urgent consideration due to systemic bias, ongoing threats to life, and repeated obstruction by lower courts. II. Grounds for Reconsideration 1. Overlooked Facts Appellant continues to face retaliatory arrests, harassment, and obstruction of legal filings. Documented incidents include: e Arrest at federal courthouse around day 8 and 15th January 2024, while filing legal documents, including a default judgment (video evidence exists in Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division); © Over 3 false arrests and fabricated psychiatric claims (2023-2025) described in multiple lawsuits: Berrocal v. San Antonio, Berrocal v. Texas, Berrocal v. Bondi, Berrocal v. Bexar County. e@ Recently May 28th, I was illegally arrested by police who stole my house, cars, clothing, and court evidence to block justice and make me homeless, US federal court case Western District of Texas Berrocal vs Bondi, and 5th Circuit appeal case 25-50617, described in more detail e Physical abuse and torture near to death and restraint in Bexar County custody (Nov 17, 2024); placed with killers in jail and massive 1 million bond without 0 evidence described in Berrocal vs Texas (federal supreme court intervened 2 times) e Repeated harassment, threats to life, and attacks on personal property, including vehicles, described in the federal district court Western District, Berrocal vs Bondi, and the Sth circuit case number 25-50617 These facts demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm absent intervention. 2. Overlooked Legal Authority / Supreme Court Precedent Appellant’s motion cites controlling Supreme Court authority supporting emergency relief: e@ Nken vy. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) — standards for emergency relief e Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) — irreparable injury from First Amendment and other constitutional violations (4th, 5th, 8th, 14th Amendments) e@ Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) — state actors liable for constitutional violations e@ Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017) — detention without probable cause e Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) — denial of access to courts e@ Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) — retaliation for exercising legal rights e@ Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) — municipal liability for patterns of abuse These authorities support granting emergency relief, protecting life, and ensuring access to courts, all ignored in the federal district court and federal 5th circuit Court of Appeals III. Judicial Recusal A. Legal Standard 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) & (b)(1) — judges must recuse where impartiality may reasonably be questioned e@ Supreme Court precedent: Caperton vy. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) B. Specific Grounds e Denial of emergency motions without addressing evidence of abuse or obstruction e Patterns of dismissals, delayed rulings, and disregard for civil rights e Connections between presiding judges and state actors involved in Appellant’s cases. e Supporting affidavit and prior motion for recusal in the federal court Western District of Texas, Judges Orlando Garcia, Jason Pulliam, Xavier Rodriguez, Magistrate Judges Elizabeth Chestney, Henry Bemporad e Threats to Appellant’s safety, ongoing retaliation, and multiple attempts on life C. Previous Recusals and Syste