Whether a federal district court can impose sanctions on an attorney for refusing to file substantive presentations while challenging the court's authority through procedural objections

No question identified. : No. In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SCOTT ERIK STAFNE Petitioner Vv. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, OF WASHINGTON, et al., Respondents On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 23-3509 APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI APPLICATION TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICE ELNA KAGAN OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Scott E. Stafne, pro se STAFNE LAW Advocacy & Consulting 239 N. Olympic Avenue Arlington, WA 98223 360.403.8700 scott@stafnelaw.com APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of the Rules of this Court, Applicant Scott Erik Stafne hereby requests a 60-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari up to and including Monday, February 16, 2025. JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The August 15, 2025 Memorandum, for which review is sought is, Scott Erik Stafne, v. Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington., et al., No. 23-3509, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Applicant’s petition for rehearing en banc review on September 19, 2025, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. JURISDICTION This Court will have jurisdiction over any timely filed petition for certiorari in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Under Rules 13.1, 13.3 of the Rules of this Court, a petition for a writ of certiorari is due to be filed on or before December 18, 2025. REASONS JUSTIFYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME Applicant respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, up to and including February 16, 2025. 1. Applicant is disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act under 42 U.S.C. Ch. 126, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 1, 104 Stat. He will be 76 years-old in January and suffers from both acute and chronic medical conditions, including but not limited to: age, diabetes, HIV, cardiac abnormalities, respiratory conditions, spinal problems, metabolic disease, gastrointestinal abnormalities, and persistent stress, which began affecting him in December 2022 when he first started coughing up mucus during a trial which has not been resolved. . These conditions and disabilities make it difficult for Applicant to work and/or work for sustained periods of time preparing legal presentations, such as petitions for a writ of certiorari. . Applicant and his partner, Larry Stuaffer, contracted a flu and/or severe cold approximately three days ago. Both are experiencing congestion and increased phlegm, which make breathing somewhat difficult. . As a result of the aforegoing conditions and disabilities, Applicant requires frequent medical appointments and treatments which significantly affect his ability to meet legal deadlines. 5. Notwithstanding these conditions and disabilities Applicant recently was called upon to file an Article 15 filing with the International Criminal Court with regard to those crimes against humanity which appear to be continuing in Nigeria after the office of the prosecutor of that Court dismissed that case in 2020 based on prosecutorial discretion. Applicant has attached hereto as Exhibit 3 the reference filing document pertaining to that legal presentation. 6. Applicant is an attorney appearing pro se in this matter, which arises from sanctions imposed in connection with his representation in DeBotton v. Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington, No. 2:23-cv-00223-RSL (W.D. Wash.). The sanctions stem from Applicant’s refusal to file substantive presentations on behalf of his client while the district court asserted authority to proceed through a senior judge whose participation had been timely objected to. At the time, the case was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and issues concerning the court’s authority and the availability of appellate review were pending u