Whether a pro se litigant's procedural challenges to a state probate court's estate administration ruling can be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 or § 1442

No question identified. : To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5, 22, 30,2, and 30.3, Petitioner Benzo Rudnikas, pro se, (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the deadline to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this matter be extended for (30) thirty days from the current deadline of October 28, 2025. This would make the extended deadline fall on November 27, 2025. This application is timely as it is being sent through certified mail via the United States Postal Service to the Supreme Court Clerk before the last day to file an application for extension of time as noted by the postmark/tracking number. Since the 10 day fell on a Saturday, the last day to mail the extension of time is the next business day, Monday, October 20, 2025. BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION On July 17, 2024, Petitioner filed his Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Petitioner asserted grounds to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 and 28 U.SC. § 1442. On November 27, 2024, the District Court issued it’s Order of Remand. On November 27, 2024, Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal to the United States Court Of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of the Order of Remand as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). On July 30, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed his appeal. A copy of the Order of Remand of the District Court as well as a copy of the Order Dismissing his Appeal is attached hereto. This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and Petitioner has timely invoked this Court’s jurisdiction to extend the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c). REASONS FOR GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME Petitioner respectfully and humbly requests a (30) thirty-day extension of time. As good cause, Petitioner respectfully states that he is requesting the extension of time mainly because his writ of certiorari is not ready yet for this Court’s review. An additional 30 days will allow Petitioner to continue to revise, edit, research, review, and submit a well-polished Petition for Writ of Certiorari worthy of this Honorable Court’s review. Additionally, Petitioner is requesting a 30 day extension of time because he is set to have wisdom tooth surgery next week. The appointment was set up on expedited basis because his wisdom tooth became infected and Petitioner is currently now on antibiotic to hold him off until he can get the tooth extracted. Inevitably, this will take away some crucial time that Petitioner planned on using for his petition. Lastly, Petitioner is requesting an additional (30) thirty days because he needs more time as he cannot pay for the 40 paper booklet copies of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at this time. An additional 30 days should allow sufficient time to pay these costs. Petitioner has conferred with Opposing Counsel for Respondent, who advised he had no objection to the requested extension. CONCLUSION Petitioner respectfully requests a thirty-day extension of time from the current deadline to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. VERIFICATION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. “A Benzo Rudnikas Executed on October 20, 2025 USCA11 Case: 24-13914 Document: 55-2 Date Filed: 07/30/2025 Page: 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Appeals Hor the Eleventh Circuit No. 24-13914 STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-22733-JEM Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 24-13914 Document: 55-2 Date Filed: 07/30/2025 Page: 2 of 2 2 Order of the Court 24-13914 BY THE COURT: “Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appe