Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re Symon Mandawala, Petitioner

No.

24' IO\0°\

3tt ®Jje

Supreme Court of tfje ®ntteb States

IN RE SYMON MANDAWALA,

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to

the Fifth Circuit court of Appeals

filed

MAR 2 0 2025

supremeFcoIjr9:LurK

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Symon Mandawala

P.O. Box 5512

San Antonio, TX 78201

(206) 931-5636

Pro-se Petitioner

RECEIVED

MAR 2 6 2025

SUPREEMEFCOURTLnRK

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

This case originates from a Texas state district

court and involves Baptist's response to a complaint

that includes Title IV claims and breach of contract.

A demand for full disclosure was made on December

14, 2018, and I submitted my complete disclosure on

January 11, 2019. However, the complaint was

dismissed after the defense met with the judge

privately, and I received the dismissal motion a day

later. On August 23, 2022, the trial judge in the

federal district court inquired about the number of

witnesses each party planned to bring, and we both

gave him. Instead of proceeding with the trial,

Baptist filed a motion for summary judgment,

claiming I refused to provide citizens' documentation.

Despite my completely disclosed disclosure in state

court, Baptist's silence was deafening, ignoring my

attempts to get clarification. I later found out that

the case had been discussed ex parte with a Baptist

representative. On December 16, 2022, the trial

judge called me at 210 244-2899 to inform me of his

intention to rule on the motion, giving me only 48

hours to respond. This short response time

significantly increased the pressure.

1.

Whether writ of mandumus should issue

direct to both the Appeals and district court to

uphold Article IV of the US constitution “full faith

and credit clause.” for the discovery process and

exchange of evidence in state court apply in federal

court proceedings?

2. Whether a district court judge's delibaratly

ignored his knowledge of witnesses available to

testify on a trial date before the defendant files a

summary judgement motion are in line with "Facts

Unavailable to the Nonmovant" In light of

Fed.R.Cv.P 56(d)?

1

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner Symon Mandawala was the plaintiff in

the district court and appellant in the Fifth Circuit.

Respondents Baptist School of Heath Professions

appellee in the Fifth Circuit.

Baptist School of Heath Professions and others

dismissed were defendants in the US district court.

Baptist School of Heath Professions

defendant alone in the Texas district court.

was

11

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

This case arises from the following proceedings:

•

Mandawala v. Baptist School of Health

Professions, et al., No. 24M36,US suOp.

(November 12, 2024) (denying motion to

file out of time petition for the writ of

cirtiarari);

•

Mandawala v. Baptist School of Health

Professions, et al., No. 23-50258,5th Cir.

(May 6, 2024) (denying rehearing en banc);

•

Mandawala v. Baptist School of Health

Professions, et al., No. 21-50258, 5th Cir.

(April 2, 2024) (Affirm the defendants’

motion for Summary Judgement granting);

•

Mandawala v. Northeast Baptist Hospital,

et al., 21-1407 (petition for writ of

certiorari was denied)

•

In re: Symon Mandawala 21-op-50023

(petition for writ of Mandamus denied

converted to notice of appeal)

•

Mandawala v. Northeast Baptist Hospital,

et al., 16 F4th 1144(5th Cir. 2, 2021)

(Affirming motion to dismiss other parties

and claimes);

•

Mandawala v. Baptist School of Health

Professions, etal.,No. 5:19-CV-01415, W.D.

Tex. (March 14,2023) (granting motion for

summary judgement and other defendants’

motion to dismiss on September 3, 2020).

iii

Texas state district court 438

• Mandawalav. Baptist School of Health

-FVo/essio/is,etaZ.,No.2018CI19490, (October

2, 2018)

There are no other proceedings in state or federal

trial or appellate courts, or in this Court, related

to this case under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(b)(iii).

VI

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Pages

Bradv v. United States. 397 U.S. 742. 748 (19701:

2

Brookhart v. Janis. 384 U.S. 1 (1966)1:

2

Camlev v. Cochran. 369 U.S. 506. 516 119621:

2

Cheney v United State Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367.

380-81 (20041.)........................................................

1

Coleman v. Thompson. 501 U.S. 722. 752 (1991):

3

Faretta v. California. 422 U.S. 806. 835 0975);

2

Godinez v. Moran. 509 U.S. 389. 399—401 ('1993);

2

Herrera v. Collins. 506 U.S. 390. 404 (1993)

3

Iowa v. Tovar. 541 U.S. 77. 88 (2004)1: Tovar, 541

U.S. at 88

2

Johnson v. Zerbst. 304 U.S. 458. 464 1938));

2

Schlasenhauf v. Holder. 379 U.S. 104, 109112(1964))...........................................................

1

Schriro v. Landrigan. 550 U.S. 465, 479 (2007)

2

Tison H. Claude ir.. Marcelino Echevarria and

Scan realty Service, inc.. 780 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir.

1986)

2

vu

Wainwrisht v. Sykes. 433 U.S. 72. 90-91 1977):

3

CODES RULES Authorities

“Full Faith and Credit” 28 U.S.C. 1738

1,6

Fed.R.Cv.P 56

3,13

Fed.R.Cv.P 56 (d)

35

Fed.R.Cv.P 56 (h)

2

Tex.Hea.& Saf. code § 161.132 (a)

4,5

1

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDEMUS

1. (a) The district court has no power to waive

Article IV, Section 1 to the United States

Constitution “ Full Faith and Credit shall be given

in each state to the public acts, Records, and

judicial proceedings of every other state. And

congress may be general laws prescribe the

manner in which such acts, records and

proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof

coded 28 USC §1738;

t

A writ of mandamus is properly granted to

correct the “usurpation of judicial power.” Cheney u

United State Dist. Ct.. 542 U.S. 367. 380-81 f2004).

mandamus an appropriate remedy to review the

challenged power of the District Court, see

Schlagenhauf v. Holder. 379 U.S. 104. 109-112(1964)

Specific to this case, when it was in state district

court, *on December 14, 2018 Baptist requested full

* Texas District court record showing Mandawala disclosed.

a .atw-ov-

O

A

x is. j xi*

OOUK-ateTrO** PM

=

search. bexar.org/Ca se.

^POOOin

1XT 1 /201 <3

ORIGINAL

“

DISCLOSURE

P00009

"I 7./1 4/201 e

ORIGINAL ANSWER

OF

BAPTIST SCHOOL OF

HEALTH

PROFESSIONS. SP

GCIAL EXCEPTIONS,

JURV DEMAND AMO,

REQUES

T FOR DISCLOSURE

POOOOS

T 2/14/2018

JURY DEMAND JURY

FEE PAID

SOOOOI

-i 1/9/201 S

__ _ ft****#'

CITATION

BAPTIST SCHOOL OF

PROFESSIONS

ISSUED: 11/9/2018

RECEIVED:

-i ixt 9X2oia

EXECUTED:

11/20X201B

RETURNED:

11/21/201S

{**-

i’iriTV

2

disclouser during state preceeding. First I fully

comply with their request at the time and submit my

entire disclousre on January 11, 2019. I never

verbaly or submit to the district court any waiver of

Article IV, section 1. while this Court has stated,

over and over, that “[wjaivers of constitutional rights

not only must be voluntary but must be knowing,

intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of

the relevant circumstances and likely consequences,”

Brady v. United States. 397 U.S. 742, 748 (19701

(citing Brookhart v. Janis. 384 U.S. 1 119661'): see

also Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465. 479 (2007)

(citing Iowa v. Tovar. 541 U.S. 77. 88 1200411: Tovar,

541 U.S. at 88 (citing Johnson v, Zerbst, 304 U.S.

458. 464 1193811:

I provided Baptist with same material in federal

district court docket 63 and 90 respectively. The

request that raised the motion for summary

judgement was the third time and they claim that I

did not comply with Fed.R.Cv.P 56 becaus this time

they added request of my citizenship document

which is irrelevant to either of my claims. This is

coming from the same record the trial court says

there is nothing in the record. See infra 21a-22a The

constitution right waiver must be reflected in the

trial record, and it must be “voluntary,” “knowing,”

and “intelligent” acts. See Godinez v. Moran. 509 U.S.

389, 399-401 (19931; Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806,

835 (1975); Brady v. United States. 397 U.S. 742, 748

(1970); Carnley v. Cochran. 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962);

Johnson v. Zerbst. 304 U.S. 458, 463-64 Id.

In state

court proceedings Baptist never raised issue of non

compliancy when they were

fully

served.

Furthermore, the district court granting the

3

summary judgement motion and denied to

reconsider based on record established in district

court without reflect any constitution waiver and

affirmed by the panel’s is an act of judicial undue

hasty. It could have make sense for claiming non

compliance in state court and curried on to federal

district court on Texas state rules and procedures

See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 ('1991'):

Wainwrisht v. Svkes. 433 U.S. 72. 90-91 (19771: see

also Herrera v. Collins. 506 U.S. 390. 404 (19931.

Baptist requested disclouser and was fully provided

while in federal court claiming non compliance is

not only contradicting or ignoring the US

constitional requirment of full faith and credit clause

for the tril and panel review but as an act of bad

faith by Baptist(see Fed.R.Cv.P 56(h)).

If there was no private communications regarding

this issue by the district court and Baptist, I could

have concluded the court made an error. Ignoring or

denying full faith and credit clause, after ex-part

with phone calls with Baptist only without me then

come to me privatly, is questionable act by the court.

I had expectations that this was going to be resolved

with status conference with both parties present but

it did not happen so. Unresponsiveness of baptist is

being disregarded, how can i take deposition when

Baptist were not responding? Baptist seek ex-parte

help from trial court after realizing there is no other

wajr to win a case with question number 2 facts and

evidence.

4

1(b) Trial court judge's knowledge of witnesses

available to testify on a trial date before the

defendant files a summary judgement motion

satisfy the “Facts Unavailable to the Nonmovant

Party" In light of Fed. R. Cv P 56(d)

During the pretrial conference on August 23,

2022, which was before Infra 21a-24a Despite the

trial judge having a **clear understanding of the

witnesses each party intended to bring, I was

unexpectedly held responsible for not complying with

(see infra 21a-24a) Rule 56 because I didn't provide

Baptist's lawyers with copies of my approximately

sixty days prior (contrast infra 21a-22a) to Baptist

decided to file a motion for summary judgment

without including any testimony from witnesses who

were intended to testify at the trial.

** This triscribe was from August 23, 2022 two month before

Motion for summary judgement was filed. Contrary to infra 18a21a claiming Mandawala informed the judge about witness

availability during the motion for reconsideration

18

And since we know we're going to have a jury trial at

19

this point, ary idea of the nuttier of witnesses, just — again,

20

just an idea.

21

22

X 'm not going to hold either side to it.

But, Mr. Mandawala, do you have any idea of the mnfcer

of witnesses you might want to call?

23

PR. MRNERMUA:

24

THE aJURT:

25

PR. HOLBROOK:

Possibly five or six.

Okay.

And defense?

Approximately five, Your Honor.

Just

23-50258 1206

Case 519-CV-01415-JKP Document 145 Filed 08/07/23 Page 6 of 11

6

5

The only material never asked in state court was

citizenship status. This request, once again as you

can see, is completely irrelevant and has no impact

or merit on this case, especially when compared to

the crucial importance of the witnesses' testimony.

Moreover, it's important to note that the trial judge

spoke to a Baptist attorney in private before

contacting me, which raises concerns about

procedural fairness probably they are one team and

that cannot be overlooked.

2. This court should stop the district court from

rewriting Texas Health and Safety Code §

161.132(a). The district court allows non-state

employees, like educators, to handle accusations of

patient abuse, whereas state law assigns these

claims to a government agency or the state

attorney general’s office.?

Texas state law disgnate patient complaint of

abuse as criminal offense. **The abuse claimes

required to be investigated by law enforment

agencies of the Texas state, see Texas Health and

Safety code § 161.132 (a) Mrs. Frominos who is a

private person was claiming to receive two patient

complaints and she is recommending school to

impose punishment to me. See infra 2J?a-23a That’s

why I asked the en-banc court of Appeals, where

does Mrs. Frominos prosecuteral power to recive the

** Texas Health and safety code § 161.132 (a) A person ... or

other person associated with ....or hospital that provides

comprehesive medical rehabilitations services, who reasonably

believe that or who knows information that would reasonably

cause a person to believe that the physical or mental health or

welfare of the patient.... has been, is, or will be adversely - conti

o

6

patient complaint investigate and recommend the

punishment come from. 2, ***was not suppose to be

some orth to the state for Mrs. Frominos to prosecute

the patient complaint in order for the summary

judgement motion to be granted. 3, does the panel

and the district court grant the summary judgement

motion not endosing private citizen prosecution or its

only me where constitution say Symon Mandawala

can be prosecuted by anyone who doesn’t like him

with any crime? This is simply a question of lack of

prosecutirial powers by Mrs. Frominos based on

Texas Health and safety code § 161.132 (a), the law

Cont - affected by abuse or neglect caused by any person shall

as soon as possible report the information supporting the belief

to the agency that licenses the facility or to the appropriet state

health care regulatory agency.” words ommited

*** Non state employee claiming receiving patient complaint

reporting it to school but not reporting to state regulators or

agency

Case 5:19-cv-01415'JKP Document 137 Filed 12/27/22 Page 22 of 53

P-

Moorman, Melissa

FromSent:

To:

Subject':

r«^. itn-'i

t/fy X. iL'tl " C?,

-sis”

M. fi<?*’■ 'out*-, uhesjf*

!

it

trw: she

mkk m « faertty

d'jet, hot

ftsv** OK£ riuym treu fa. to epixiz? you *f

fc'acttffns ir

Crp3rTny»rv, ove: wfven i tjctrrrtd 3 tea sorre?

Put qjpsretrry trw" rs. n<S Hie r>v

fOn.

h»ve a student cppenmiiy nc one wenis. Odd fha ytm hava 10 empty dfiaxl ties fct tte* Urns, but vow are que3ift*mg

fry rcoiiesl to not hsvs to ove*1*p Jrfs people m tnz?en*j, soa

they

osrfcj. I tfvxigS? * wot/C maM 'man cits*

tc irdV? Syrte»i now rstfher tkm

fc~ hi fir#: «tc§\

at hef? htsr-,

bsva h rr.

te jt<rrt <r«/c* at ffspSysr

tedtty. 1

betirwad

pCTheUed to rcqyrxs not f^vtng 0 student wtvrt we

‘Cv< otrplcv**: n froiyns *:

■

1 fcnow K U*os too off sc*

hsve ic/rawr! frcrc tynoig a dude?* und:*

lTi.1 there toy Ki:ytiPv tec*

a

the; N&tf han not oeet ok': to rodents, ana toefly two, tpt ©carpon U?-x viher rto

v?a% q need.

ortf*

1 tw*fc2*vo wc-ftsve rv-v.- expand *r supper ^ :♦ c schoo*. taticyfc^y ec^M'cr

. >yr~~ - i vi‘

t" •,-•

,n rSC£V v.-Z'Vin S - .: *r<*ise C i?opb -exi :c C-* ; v

ftwion:

fee*

v- y

r-r;„ ^rc^-ici cii-f- to

rt

St IT! abandon rr-: ^U'X'n'-’ sw......... ' .............. ..

>•

r??.y

?>.; ,t t .jn ■. .<• -- -d

nt-vcfcfSctifhpi:x '.vora. Wt-.. v-.-j!

atr-rude *.e

a vc

- ..f

i , UK;- fP.J^

-wire; frty ■

i. tr»t'^'^r:r;,|v:8i -..........in !o ft*-??; Imu rirt!5T5“wTTr Hi <r^er_“~ .-.

:?-vrZ‘"/s"

:rr.: a *i rr/. ,*y?

r«r«-"r; ^

*-••

h- ■ -■* , ,

{

r •

. t

Si rsi

7

itself says if she was belived Iabused two patients she

should have report whereever Baptist Northeast

hospital was lincesed. She took matters in her own

hards and instructing the school about punishment I

can get. The school ended up follow that instruction at

the end of the course to remove my name from

graduation list despite finishing any other non clinical

practise clases despite everything she said never

happen with me or my presents.

OPINIONS BELOW

The original opinion of the court of appeals opinion

are reported and available as unpublished opinion

USCA 23-50258. App. 2a-15a. The denial of rehearing

en. Pet. App. la. The opinion of the United States

District Court for the Western District of Texas

granting a motion for summary judgement denying

reconsideration. Pet. App. 15a-24a.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651

to consider this petition because all remedies were

ehxusted before Appellate court issued case close

mandate, there is no available remedy through either

state or lower federal court systems only in this court.

The Appellate Court's refusal to address a significant

issue of district court's self-waiver of authority, as

stated in Article IV, Section One of the U.S.

Constitution, during my rejected en-banc request.

Specifically, the district court lacks both authority

and discreation to alter Texas Health and Safety Code

§ 161.132(a). the Appellate Court issued a mandate in

Jun 2024 that closed the action both in the Appallet

and district court.

8

CONSTITUTIONAL, RULES AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Article IV, Section 1 to the United States Con­

stitution “ Full Faith and Credit shall be given in

each state to the public acts, Records, and judicial

proceedings of every other state. And congress may

be general laws prescribe the manner in which such

acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and

the effect thereof coded 28 USC §1738.”

The Federal Rules of Civil proceedure 56 (d)

“When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant”

Section 161.132(a)(e) Texa Heath and Safety

(reporting of abuse and neglect or of illegal,

unprofessional, or unethical conduct.) (a)...or other

Person associated with..., or hospital..., shall as

soon as possible reporting infomation supporting

the belief to the agency that licences the facility or

to appropriet state health care regulatory agency

STATEMENT

A. Factual background

Eight years ago in 2016, I started my college class

in Diogonost medical sonography at Baptist school of

health Professions. I pass my first classes without

any struggle or fail until the school sent me for

attachment to their associated hospitals.

9

iThe hospital department was understaffed, and I

denied access to scan patients by staff

was

primary

the

particular

in

members,

technicians.However, this was contrary to the

course requirements since the course manual

requires the student to scan and send images to

Mrs Palmer (Class instructor) at school for the

student's work to be recorded and evaluated,

understaff issue was absolutly affecting my progress.

It reached a point where I was asked to patient

impersonte for use in the recruiting processf new

staff. This was a staff duty, but it was done by a

student. Other hospitals like Northeast baptist

hospital the problem was staff polical divisions.

There was two long time service employees working

in Ultrasound department Mr. Virj pascal (retired)

and Mrs. Debra Frominos. Because of working

closely with Mr. Pascal I become an opponet to Mrs.

Frominos unknowingly. That was when

1 The Email says, “I have a student currently at Missiontral

and need to pull the student from the site due to their

staffing issue”

Oise 5:1&-cv-Q1415n)KP Docunemi37 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1* ol 53

£

Ki.'i

> linwii

«*.«•*aeonh** « »*

riwwfcgecwmnnijrl iti

tunJIiiiiwr

■jh

Me**** nuMAvstaitti

*»*•**.»

10

Mrs. Frominos lying about reciving 2 patient

complaint that of abuse by me. To sup rise of many

she reported all sorts of made up stories of patient

complaint to School by Email without reporting to

the regulatory as Texas law requires. My recollection

is only based on the patient who told Mrs. Frominos

that she does not want a male student during her

scanning and I was outside her patient room the

entire time of scanning. Some student before me

complained about Mrs. Fromimos preffer white

student to be at her site. Another challenge to the

hospitals were equipment in some hospitals.

2Some equipment were knew technology that even the

people who suppose to assist me needed training for it.

Contrast infra 22a-24a After numerous discussions

with school officials, including two presidents at the

time, the school falsely accusedme of mistreating the

patient, using Mrs. Fromimos's email as evidence.

That's where the state lawsuit started in Texas courts.

After filing the state complaint on December 14, 2018,

Baptist requested full disclosure during the state

preceding. I submitted the document and names of the

individuals they can contact with full details of their

contact numbers on January 11, 2019.After filing the

plaintiff’s summary judgment, the court scheduled a

hearing. However, four days before the hearing, the

Baptist filed a motion to dismiss. During the hearing,

the judge discussed Baptist's motion, which I had not

2 Hosptital instructors report to school about staff and equiment

issues.^This site was hard for Symon to get scan time due to

various obstacles with the site (Tech out, new machines) He did

great for what he had to work with” contrast to infra 19a-20a conti. to 11

11

received until after the case was dismissed,

I

requested a CD-ROM of the record and was surprised

to find that the online record stated "case dismissed

by plaintiff." As a result, I filed a federal complaint

instead of appealing to the state court of appeal.The

federal district court dismissed some claimes for

failour to state the claim e.g defirmation regarding

patient complaint that never happen at all and no

state agency recieved any information about it. I tried

to appeal the dismissal and the district court office

gave me a CD-rom of records without court of appeals

record numbers in it. I tried several time to get new

CD-rom from the office of the district court clerk while

preparing appeal brief. The office never gave me the

one until the brief filed period was pass. When I

contacted the district clerks office to give my

grievance the apologised and told me the clerk who

2 Conti. From 10

" ~m8<13n^^Ss£ 6'19-cv-01415-JKP Document 1&TS PnetPaateyyZ2 ‘Pagitl'B'&f S£

* m © © JR

Y

Used Cars.

o

<-

•

O

i*?

Q («**;•*, (lRr»l V

** hrtpc www.e-vaiiue.net

• vbl

-.e

hubc*

r

►'•pan* R«j»cr>y

Anolysiv oi Student Comment*

StC/oct

Time P-ertorf tpfwr Report Oof*-

*«*»Tk*lTVC MtniMWCowmM.

InMraw

C

fJSS. 3-02

C r<3n m Cc*r£

*

:

12

was responsible she is no longer in san antoniofederal

court house. The no record supported brief went on

like that and the court of appeals affirmed the

judgement and this court denied my petition for writ

of certiorary.

After mediation failed, on a status conference dated

08/23/2022, two months before Baptist filed their

summary judgment motion, Judge Pulliam asked me,

"Mr. Manadawala, do you have any idea of the

number of witnesses you might want to call?" (Id, pg3)

I responded, "possibly five or six." Judge Pulliam then

said, "Okay," and further asked, "defense?" Mr.

Holbrook responded, "Approximately five, your

honor." (Id, pg3) Subsequently, the district court

issued a discovery period schedule with a

confidentiality and protective order in the district

docket 117. (Id) The order was issued, blocking me

from requesting any material related to what the

school and hospital claimed they received - two

patients' complaints for abuse by me as shown on Id

pg 4, paragraph 2, sentence #1. Unfortunately, the

order was meant to stop only me, as the defense went

on to collect my medical status information from both

my counselor and school counselor to be used in this

case without my consent. I received an email from the

school's attorney confirming that they have my

medical status documents and requesting to schedule

a deposition with me. Almost 95% of the requested

materials were already provided in document 63 and

90. The only requested materials not in document 63

and 90 are my tax returns and citizenship documents,

which seem unrelated to the case. These materials do

not contain relevant information about my status as

an American citizen involved in a court case,

discrimination based on gender, or breach of contract.

13

It seems like the request was made to frustrate or

harass me. I made multiple attempts to schedule a

deposition with Mr. Holbrook for October 3, 2022, but

did not receive a response until December 14, 2022.

Despite my efforts, they proceeded to file for summary

judgment, alleging that I did not respond to their

discovery request. I was deeply concerned about the

lack of opportunity to respond, particularly

considering their failure to follow up with me after

our initial attemp on October 3, 2022.After

discovering that I had attempted to contact them on

October 3, 2022 (see infra. 17a-18a), she informed me

that they needed to inform Judge Pulliam about my

attempts before the discovery period ended. I noticed

that they had been working with a judge on this

motion. We agreed to reschedule for January 4, 2023,

and for me to be repositioned after the pivotal pretrial

conference on that day. While waiting as agreed with

Baptist counsel, I anticipated that there might be a

possible status conference. 48 hours later, after

speaking on the phone with a Baptist lawyer, Judge

Pulliam called me on this number +1210-244-2899.

He said he would give me 48 hours to file an answer

to Baptist's motion for summary judgment because he

wants to rule on the motion and give me that chance

to respond before he does so.

They attempted to confuse me by submitting multiple

amendments to the motion for summary judgment,

despite having previously agreed with the judge not to

specify which docket amendment I should respond to.

Regardless of which docket I responded to, the judge

had already planned to refer to a different one. I

inquired of the judge, "Which summary judgment are

you referring to? Because there were three different

14

dockets, each filled with different evidence to support

each distinct one. Docket 125 contains three, docket

126 contains four, and docket 127 contains five."

Subsequently, I was put on a 5-minute brief hold, and

15 minutes later, the judge's courtroom deputy called

me again, informing me that Judge Pulliam was going

to issue an order for me to respond. The delay in the

response was evident. Later that day, Judge Pulliam

indeed issued that order.

When Judge Pulliam granted the summary judgment

and dismissed the case, I still had nine days left to

respond to the summary judgment amendment

motion on the last docket number 127 because the

amendments superseded the original time to respond

to the original motion. However, the judge said that is

not how it works. The presiding judge, through his

actions, demonstrated a blatant disregard for the

legal process by engaging in inappropriate ex-parte

court conferences with the defense lawyers. This

conduct necessitates a review of the case.

"In discussing this issue with the parties, the Court

learned they may have been confused about what

effect the defendant’s amended motions (ECF Nos.

126, 127) had on the deadline." I understand that he

called me on a private phone call where he said I was

planning to rule on Baptist's motion for summary

judgment. I was not there either when he was

discussing it with Baptist attorneys.

I filed an Appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of

Appeals, a crucial step in reviewing the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 56(d). The trial judge's evident

knowledge of the unavailability of facts from

15

individuals I assured would be available to testify is a

crucial aspect of this case. The appeals court affirmed

the district court judgment (infra 1After the order was

issued on April 4, 2024, by the Fifth Circuit Court, I

took immediate action. I filed a motion to request a

twelve-day extension and stay of time for filing the

petition for rehearing during the period of filing a

petition for rehearing, which ends on April 18, 2024.

This was because someone seconded my petition for

rehearing for grammar and proper language. I also

represented myself because the trial judge appointed

an attorney I knew well, who is a friend of one of the

Baptist lawyers. On April 22, 2024, the court denied

the motion. However, the court of appeals clerk never

sent any copy of the order denying me an extension

and staying the judgment until August 14, 2024.

The lower court denied my request for an extension on

April 22, 2024, but failed to inform me as required. As

a result, I filed a petition for rehearing on May 1,

2024, only to be denied. When I sought an extension

in this court, my application was rejected as untimely.

Upon clarification, it was revealed that the lower

court had rejected my request on April 22, 2024, but

the order was not sent to me until August 14, 2024.

The lower court claimed I filed the motion on April 22,

2024, but I actually sent it on April 18, 2024, which

was within 14 days from the date of the original order

Reasons for Granting the Petition

This case has witnessed numerous inappropriate

court actions, many of which have taken place in my

absence. Baptist, in collaboration with court officials,

including judges, has been orchestrating these actions

without my presence. From the court of appeals

16

clerk's offices to the trial court, district court clerk's

offices, and even state court offices, there have been

instances of Baptist attorneys working with court

officers on this case, all without my presence.

A. Court of Appeals order dated April 22, 2024

denying extention of time not sent until August 14,

2024

On April 22, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

denied my motion for a twelve-day extension of time,

infra la which I filed on April 18, 2024, to submit a

petition for rehearing en banc. However, 3 I received

the court's denial order on August 14, 2024. This

delay caused me to miss the seven-day window to

request a stay of the judgment. Unaware of the denied

motion, I went ahead and filed my petition for

rehearing en banc, but it was not considered due to

the court's order that I had not yet received. Because

of that, I also faced significant confusion and

challenges when I sought an extension to file a

petition for the writ of certiorari. These procedural

errors have created a situation that needs to be

reconsidered.

3 The order April 22, 2024 denying twelve days extension to file

petition for rehearing is inside but was mailed to me August 14,

2024

fO <v • *>4« vr. LA

.ZSZZZZVrU

JT.ViHtf.W8

1* MJTc (fLMHNw 1 4

ft ftiwj'Q*) 69

issm -*3Ki.

f

Mr v>lM

f.X» Bax f«!2

YJC T*1(C

17

B. I received CD-Rom of Records in Appeals court

without Electronic record numbers

In 2020, I made efforts to appeal the partial

dismissal of my first federal case # 20-50981. I

requested electronic records from the trial court

clerk for the appeal and 4 received a CD-ROM

without the necessary appeal numbers. Despite

repeated attempts to obtain a new CD-ROM

withproper numbering, the issue was not resolved

up to the brief filing was due. The clerk verbally

apologized but did not provide a written apology >

saying the clerk who made the mistake was no

longer working at the San Antonio courthouse. I

lost the appeal and since it all looks now it wasn’t

coincedent.

4 It was beyond my control to force the disrict court clerk to

reproduce the CD after several attempt to get one. The

citation number always found at the right bottom cornor. (This

court’s clerk returned this copy of the CD back to me)

cr

ES--

*

C3 ■—

□

fSS

--.t'.?

**

*

nr-

’i

tt*w*

4

«*•-. W Ei-Jt.

-. •

IMTW

nm"‘ —

rrr

4

i

lr_-_ »-r. -Trr

' -- *V

o

18

C. The district trial court started conducting each

individual partie private status conferences since I

raise a question of school officials lacking

prosecuturial powers.

The presiding judge had expressed to Mr. Hillard,

an attorney member of the group of African

Americanlawyers in San Antonio, that he did not

like me

because I did not want my case to go to an

independent mediator. The presiding judge was a

group member before his appointment to the federal

bench. By then, I had only two federal cases, 19-cv0635 JKP and 19-cv-1415 JKP, in my entire life,

and both cases were in his court. Mr. Hillard is not

part of 19-cv-1415JKP, but he represented one of

the witnesses in 19-cv-0635 JKP. Mr. Hillard's

remarks to his client about the presiding judge

disliking me because I go to court prompted me to

find out how Mr. Hillard ended up talking about my

dislike of the independent mediator. Meanwhile, it

was the only case where 19-cv-1415JKP had been

pushing the case to mediation.

Mr. Hillard's comment to his client regarding case

19-cv-1415 JKP prompted me to conduct thorough

research about the judge. I discovered that the

judge's former employer in private practice is a close

friend to attorneys representing the Baptists.

Additionally, they shared office space when the

judge was in private practice. Furthermore, the

judge is a church member and owns the Baptist

school in San Antonio, which is the subject of my

lawsuit. This information gives me confidence and

explains why the Baptist lawyers privately

19

contacted the judge when I attempted to reach out

to them.

The judge issued an order for both parties to attend

a status conference to address any procedural issues

before he changed to individual party private phone

calls. However, when questions arose about Mrs.

Fromimos's lack of power to prosecute the patient's

complaint, I observed a shift in the situation. 5 The

judge and the courtroom staff began to

communicate with me separately through a private

phone call. It's crucial to have open communication

in order to resolve this matter, and I'm seeking your

5 After the judge ex-parte conferecnce with Baptist attorneys

regarding their motion of summary judgement below is him

and courtroom deputy private call me to respond to Baptist

summary judgement motion.

;i«w»

a ore,

i■firs

<

+1 210-244-2899

AckJ note

e

Show your voicemails?

Show

Decembei 22, 2072

8:20 AM

Outgu*og coll, t? mms I? sec

December 16, 2022

«

a:43PM.

iCTComirta cnO, 2- m*rws 23

~

12:29 PM

mcormno cartfj 12 mins i i

December 13. 2022

^

4:22 PM

incoming call. i7mirts

<

<s>

Share

Add

m

»ec

z

Block

o

MOTf>

<

20

guidance to ensure that all perspectives are taken

into consideration.

D. Baptist lawyers has been working with court

officials without me since the matter was in state

court. I was served a copy motion to dismiss after it

was granted

I didn't appeal this case in the state court of

appeals because the state judge, who used to work

with the federal judge in this case, included a

document in the record stating that I dismissed the

case. I didn't dismiss the case. What happened was

that the opposing counsel went directly to the judge's

chamber while I was waiting in the courtroom, and

they filed a motion to dismiss. The judge granted it,

and I was served with the motion the day after the

case was dismissed. This process was unfair and

unjust. The state court record shows that I dismissed

the case, making it seem like a voluntary dismissal.

Therefore, the court of appeal may deny my appeal as

a manufactured appeal.

E. Few examples of many, the court rules not

apply to lawyers in presiding trial judge’s court

when one party is pro-se (judicial undue hastes)

A complaint was filed at 5:22-cv-00052 in the San

Antonio Federal Courthouse. The summon was

served on March 9, 2022, after several attempts. The

defendant in the case evaded being served, and the

district court clerk set March 30, 2022, as the due

date for the Answer. Surprisingly, a year later, on

February 7, 2023, the attorney representing a

defendant in this case was the exact defense attorney

in my case, 19-cv-635JKP, named David Fritsche. He

spoke to Miss Scott, telling her that she could not win

20

guidance to ensure that all perspectives are taken

into consideration.

D. Baptist lawyers has been working with court

officials without me since the matter was in state

court. I was served a copy motion to dismiss after it

was granted

I didn't appeal this case in the state court of

appeals because the state judge, who used to work

with the federal judge in this case, included a

document in the record stating that I dismissed the

case. I didn't dismiss the case. What happened was

that the opposing counsel went directly to the judge's

chamber while I was waiting in the courtroom, and

they filed a motion to dismiss. The judge granted it,

and I was served with the motion the day after the

case was dismissed. This process was unfair and

unjust. The state court record shows that I dismissed

the case, making it seem like a voluntary dismissal.

Therefore, the court of appeal may deny my appeal as

a manufactured appeal.

E. Few examples of many, the court rules not

apply to lawyers in presiding trial judge’s court

when one party is pro-se (judicial undue hastes)

A complaint was filed at 5:22-cv-00052 in the San

Antonio Federal Courthouse. The summon was

served on March 9, 2022, after several attempts. The

defendant in the case evaded being served, and the

district court clerk set March 30, 2022, as the due

date for the Answer. Surprisingly, a year later, on

February 7, 2023, the attorney representing a

defendant in this case was the exact defense attorney

in my case, 19-cv-635JKP, named David Fritsche. He

spoke to Miss Scott, telling her that she could not win

21

her case in Judge Pulliam's court. What surprised me

even more was that he mentioned Miss Scott could

ask me about it. You can find Mushania Scott's sworn

statement in Judicial Misconduct complaint No. 0524-90003. The next day, Mr. Fritsche filed a motion

for a more definite statement without providing any

cause. He did not seek permission to file such a late

motion. Judge Pulliam granted it and later granted

the motion to dismiss as well.

This is the same Mr. Fritsche who sued all my

witnesses in state court before filing an Answer to

my complaint 19-cv-0635 and made a settlement

with them not to stand on the trial date, see US v.

Tison H. Claude jr., Marcelino Echevarria and

Scan realty Service, inc., 780 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir.

1986)

Upon bringing the matter to the judge, I was

yelled at like a child and told to stop. This incident is

now being used as a reference to highlight how

Judge Pulliam treats parties without lawyers, which

is a clear case of unfair haste treatment.

Therefore, I'm not the only one who noticed that

the judge referred to be nineteen days from

December 16, 2022, as the day he Phoned me and

December 19, 2022, the day he ordered me to file a

response. This doesn't add up to nineteen days, as

claimed by the trial judge. That is 48-72 hour mark

RELIEF SOUGHT

As a Petitioner I, Symon Mandawala respectfully

requests that the Court, as the upholder of justice,

exercise its authority to grant this petition for a writ

of mandamus and directing the Fifth Circuit Court

Appeal to Stop the District Court from

22

Western District court Texas clerk

(i)Stop the practice of giving electronic records in

appeals court without record numbers, as that aids

the opponents in being successful in the appeal.

Fifth Circuit Chief Judge (Hon. Jennifer W.

Elrod, official capacity)

(ii) With the U.S. District Court Judge's

invocation of

Article IV section 1 of The U.S

constitutional waiver on its own with Ex-party

conference phone calls, it is crucial that this Court

orders the Chief Circuit Judge to either reassign the

cases to a visiting judge or transfer them to a neutral

venue within the circuit. This is a need to ensure a

fair legal process.

The trial court indicated disliking me for not

taking up Baptist's settlement request to an attorney

of the witness in cases 19-cv-635JKP and 5:22-cv00052, where the corporate defendant can just walk

in court one year later to file responses without

showing probable cause. It is crucial that the court

directs the chief circuit judge to reassign some cases

to quickly review these no-discretion actions by the

district court, underscoring the importance of the

court's role in the legal process.

(iii) In addition, this Court should mandate that

any court or judge overseeing this case resolve it

solely based on its merits. It should prohibit the

district court from altering the Texas Health and

Safety Code § 161.132(a), which allows non-state

employees, such as educators, to manage accusations

of patient abuse. This responsibility is specifically

assigned by state law to a government agency or the

Texas state attorney general's office, and it is crucial

for the court to act to prevent non prosecuters

23

missuse the state law in federal.

And

Any other relief this court deems appropriate aiding

to maintain the integrity of the court system.

CONCLUSION

It is crucial that this court intervene now to resolve the

issue of a defendant who has already received case

material in state court but is requesting irrelevant

material for a federal case. This intervention is

necessary to correct a potential opening door of

completely disregarding Article IV, Section 1.

The petition for a writ of mandamus should be

granted.

Respectifully submitted

Symen

qsg^Lce^bbx 5512

San Antonio,

Texas 78201

Pro-se Petitioner

January 28, 2025