Whether the Eleventh Circuit violated a pro se litigant's constitutional right of access to courts and due process by applying an inconsistent and overly broad shotgun-pleading doctrine that arbitrarily dismissed claims without addressing core constitutional issues

No question identified. : EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE MANDATE 1. Applicant, Frank Polo, respectfully submits this application for a stay of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23, pending the filing and disposition of a timely petition for writ of certiorari. (I). INTRODUCTION 2. The Eleventh Circuit denied panel rehearing, denied rehearing en banc, and denied a stay of the mandate, despite multiple issues of exceptional national importance involving: 3. The denial of constitutional access to the courts, where the Eleventh Circuit refused to engage de novo with pure legal questions about judicial recusal, the governing pleading standard under Weiland, and the use of § 1915(e) screening after full payment of the filing fee, instead resolving the appeal through deferential abuseof-discretion review and the shotgun-pleading label. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15 (2002) (recognizing right of access where official action frustrates a litigant’s ability to pursue claims); Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428-33 (1982) (due process violated where procedure arbitrarily extinguishes cause of action); Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 11-12 (2014) (per curiam) (error to dismiss complaint for “imperfect statement of the legal theory” where facts state a claim). [APPX: 1; P: 003-009] Page 1 of 28 4. Unequal and inconsistent application of the Eleventh Circuit’s shotgunpleading doctrine under Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015), treating Applicant differently from similarly situated litigants by invoking the “shotgun” label while refusing to apply Weiland’s critical limitation that counts may not be dismissed if they are “informative enough to permit a court to readily determine if they state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id. at 1323. See also Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295-96 (11th Cir. 2018) (discussing constraints on shotgun dismissals); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed). [APPX: 1; P: 003] 5. Serious and unresolved judicial-integrity concerns, including a district judge’s undisclosed sixteen-year professional overlap with a defendant state judge in the same division [APPX: 9; P: 044; §: II; 4: 8], subsequent minimization of that relationship when confronted [See APPX: 4; P: 017; 4: 1; L: 9-11], a denial of any disclosable political relationship with one of Applicant’s named political rivals [See Request to Disclose known Politicians with possible interest in the outcome of the case at APPX: 9; P: 046; §: (WHEREFORE); 4: 1; L: 20 (a-b); order on Motion to Recuse failing to disclose relationship at APPX: 4; P: 017; and denial of any disclosable political relationship with one of Applicant’s named political rivals known to have an interest in the outcome of the case at APPX: 6; P: 030; 4: 1; L: 12-13] despite public records showing that rival introduced him in congress and recommended him for his federal appointment [APPX: 11; P: 089-092], refusal to fully answer direct disclosure Page 2 of 28 requests [APPX: 4; P: 017], and rulings that consistently benefited those connections. [APPX: 9 ; P: 046]. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); Liljeberg v, Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 at 859-61 (1988); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 881-87 (2009); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 1338, 136 (1955); Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954). 6. Internal inconsistency in the Eleventh Circuit’s own precedent concerning how shotgun-pleading determinations are reviewed and constrained, where the court has enforced Weiland’s “informative enough” limitation and requirement of clear category identification in some cases, but here affirmed without applying that limitation or specifying any Weiland category, effectively turning the shotgun doctrine into an unreviewable, result-dr