Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re Symon Mandawala, Petitioner
Supreme Court briefJan 3, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
I
No.
2.4-tW5
In ®(je
Supreme Court of tfje ®utteb ibtateg
ORIGINAL
IN RE SYMON MANDAWALA,
Petitioner,
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to
the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals
FILED
JAN 0 3 2025
SUPlREEMEFCotjRTLUfRK
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Symon Mandawala
P.O. BOX 5512
San Antonio, TX 78201
(206) 931-5636
Pro-se Petitioner
RECEIVED
MAR 10 2025
°s|||couS
cl
1
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The district court dismissed this case through a
sua sponte rule 12(b)6 motion. This decision followed
the court's repeated refusal to stamp and sign the
summons during my several attempts, citing an
internal memo from the judge stating that no
summons should be issued. When I requested that
this internal memo be filed in the docket during a
phone call with the clerk, the district court, acting on
its own initiative, ordered the dismissal of the case
for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. The court demanded an amendment to the
complaint to articulate a cognizable claim. Fourteen
days later, the district court officially dismissed the
case, and no defendant had been served process by
the time the case was dismissed. The court of
appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal but
provided a different rationale, stating that the
complaint improperly sued the former state judge,
despite the fact that the complaint clearly identified
Era Living LLC corporation, as a defendant.
Whether a district court itself can invoke a
motion to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a civil case
that is nonfrivolous, no malicious, and not lacking
jurisdiction before the defendant has been served
with the process?
11
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner Symon Mandawala was the plaintiff in
the district court and appellant in the Ninth Circuit.
Respondents ERA LIVING LLC Defendant and
appellee in the Ninth Circuit. Never appear because
the district court refused to issue the summon and
the District court sou sponte dismiss the case
Respondent ERA LIVING LLC was defendant in
Washington superior court.
Ill
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
This case arises from the following proceedings:
• Mandawala v. Era Living LLC et al., No.
23-35345, 9th Cir. (JulylO, 2024)
(rehearing en banc rejected);
• Mandawala v. Era Living et al., No. 22cv-01179 W.D. Washington Cir. (April 2,
2024) (sua sponte dismissal the court
refuse to issue the summon because the
complaint did not state cognizable claim
for relief)
• Mandawala v. Era Living LLC, et al., 192-03308-8 SEA (Wash.Superio.Ct August
30, 2019)
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).
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition.
1
Opinions Below.
5
Jurisdiction.
6
Constitutional and Statutray Provisions
Involved................................................... .....
7
Statement.
7
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION....... 8
District Court Clerk Refuse to Return the
Signed and Seal Summon for Issuance
Demanding unless the complaint is Amended.......9
Section 1915(e) Conflict interpretations by
different circuit did not apply to my private
lawsuit despite used it to dismiss the lawsuit..
10
District Court Clerk refused to Give Me Copy
of Electronic Record in Appeals Court..............
11
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took one
hundred days, from April 2, 2024, to July 10,
2024, to inform me that my petition for
rehearing en banc, which I submitted on
April 13, 2024, was untimely..............................
12
REALIF SOUGHT.
13
CONCLUSION
13
V
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX: Order and Rejecting Petition for
rehearing en-banc as untimely mailed on April 13,
2024 eleven days from initial panel decision dated
la
April 2, 202
APPENDIX: MEMORANDAM, Ninth Circuit
Panel Affirming District court dismissing a case
before defendant is served the process dated April
2a-3a
2, 2024
APPENDIX: Order of Dismissal by District court
judge Richard Jones April 27, 2023.......................
4a
APPENDIX: Order Dismissing Action by District court
5a-8a
judge jones April 11, 2023
APPENDIX: District Court Datasheet
9a-10a
APPENDIX: The Subject District Court
Plaintiffs complaint with Washington State
Superior Court’ online Electronic Docket
sheet showing scheduled hearing of the
(Ghost motion) dated July 16, 2021 that was
not filed or verbally asset until July 26, 2022
lla-31a
APPENDIX: USPS receipt used for mailing
Petition for Rehearing en banc dated April 13,
2024.........................................................................
34a
VI
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Pages
Armstrong v. Rushing. 9 Cir.. 352 F.2d 836. 837
6
Bell v. Hood. 327 U.S. 678. 66 S.Ct. 773. 90 L.Ed.
939 (1946)
4,5
Branch v. Cole, supra.
686 F.2d at 266 f5lh Cir. 19821
3
California Diversified Promotions v. Musick. 505
F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 19741:...........................................
3
Cheney v United State Dist. Ct.. 542 U.S. 367.
380-81 f2004)
1
Dioguardi v. Durning. 139 F.2d 774. 775 (2d Cir.
19441.............................................................................
3
Dodd v. Spokane County. Washington. 393 F.2d
330 (9 th Cir. 19681...................................................
3
Floyd v. US postal service.. 105 F. 3d 274 (6th Cir.
4,10
1997).
Franklin v. Murphy..
745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984)
4,11
Harmon v. Superior Court.
307 F.2d 796, 798 (9 Cir.. 1962)
6
In re Link A Media Devices Coro., 662 F.3d 1221.
1222 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................
3
Vll
Literature. Inc, v. Quinn, 482 F.2d 372 (1st Cir.
1973):
3
Mississippi Publishins Corn, v. Murvhree, 326
U.S. 438. 444-45. 66 S.Ct. 242, 246. 90 L.Ed.
185 (1946)
2
Murphy Bros.Inc, v. Michetti Pipe Stringing.
Inc.. 526 U.S. 344. 350. 119 S.Ct. 1322. 1327. 143
L.Ed.2d 1144 448 (1999)
2, 11
Omni Capital Int 'l. Ltd, v. Rudolf Wolff &
Co.. 484 U.S. 97, 104. 108 S.Ct. 404, 409. . 98
L.Ed.2d 415 (1987):
2
Prewitt Enters.. Inc, v. Ors. of Petroleum
Exportins Countries. 353 F.3d 916. 924-25 (11th
Cir, 2003)......................................................................
2
Schlagenhauf v. Holder. 379 U.S. 104. 109112(1964)
1
Wallen v. Rhav, 9 Cir.. 354 F.2d 241:
6
Other Authorities
28 U.S.C. 1691“A11 Writ and Process”
1,6
28 U.S.C. 1915“ inForma Paupera”
1,6
28 U.S.C. 1915(e)
3,4,5
Fed.R.Cv.P 4 (a)
1,5
Fed.R.Cv.P 12(b)(6)
5
1
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
1. (a)28 USC §1691 states: "All writs and process
issuing from a court of the United States shall be
under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk
thereof." (b) Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(b).a summon(s) be
signed by the clerk of the court and bear the
court's seal issue to Plaintiff for service.
A writ of mandamus is properly granted to
correct the “usurpation of judicial power.” Cheney v
United State Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004).
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, the clerk of the district court in
the Western District of Washington, located in
Seattle, ^refused to issue a summons. The clerk
requested that I amend my complaint before they
would affix the court seal, sign it, and return it to me.
Summon step is necessary for court to establish
personal jurisdiction on Era Living LLC, as the
plaintiff, to serve the defendant who is a corporation.
"[0]ne becomes a party officially, and is required to
* Western District court of Washington, Seattle docket sheet
and entries. Showing the district court clerk refuse to return
summon and Mandawala tried to get the sealed and signed
summon. Also see infra 9a
Defendant
Era Living LLC
Date Filed
08/23/2022
Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Symon Mandawala against defendant(s) Era Living LLC.
.
(Siimmonsfcs^not received to issued Receipt # S-28) (Attachments: # \ Exhibits A-B, # |
2 Civil Cover Sheet)!S"h (Entered: ON/24/20?‘n
'
2
take action in that capacity, only upon service of a
summons or other authority-asserting measure
stating the time within which the party served must
appear and defend."); Prewitt Enters.. Inc. v. Ore. of
Petroleum Exporting Countries. 353 F.3d 916. 924-25
(11th Cir. 2003) (citing Murphy Bros. below)"the
service of summons is the procedure by which a court
having venue and jurisdiction of the subject matter
of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the
party served Mississippi Publishine Corp. u.
Murvhree. 326 U.S. 438. 444-45. 66 S.Ct. 242.
246. 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946) when a district court refuse
to give a summon back to the plaintiff to issue to the
defendant. It means the court as already decided its
side of favor and any judgement or orders comes
from such court is automatically bias against
plaintiff. **Because, “[bjefore a federal court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the
procedural requirement of service of summons must
be satisfied." Omni Capital Int'l. Ltd, v. Rudolf Wolff
& Co.. 484 U.S. 97. 104. 108 S.Ct. 404. 409. . 98
L.Ed.2d 415 (1987): see also Murphy Bros.Inc. u.
Michetti Pipe Stringing. Inc.. 526 U.S. 344, 350, 119
S.Ct. 1322. 1327. 143 L.Ed.2d 1144 448 (1999) here
is me the clerk denying me the right to that
procedural requirement
** The district court clerk several times on the phone responded
that there is judge’s internal memo to the clerk’s office to not
issue summon.
01/09/2023
£ PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS by Plaintiff Symon Mandawala. (SS) (Entered:
01/10/2023)
3
District court overstepped using Section
1915(e) dismissing non-frivolous or non-Malice
by invoking Rule 12(b)6 sou sponte motion to
dismiss
A writ of mandamus is properly granted to
correct the “usurpation of judicial power.” In re
Link A Media Devices Coro.. 662 F.3d 1221. 1222
(Ted. Cir. 2011). Specific to this case, the use
“judicial haste” by applying 28 U.S.C 1915 to the
premature case that a defendant was not served the
process, see Dioguardi v. Durnine. 139 F.2d 774. 775
(2d Cir. 1944) 28 U.S.C 1915 governs the district
court on an indigent litigant. There must be
exceptional circumstance the court to exercise
section 1915 to the party. Although "[n]o comprehensive
definition of exceptional circumstances is practical," Branch
v. Cole, supra. 686 F.2d at 266 (5th Cir. 1982) It requires
the litigant to demonstrate unable to pay court fee(s)
by (1) requesting the court through motion with
supporting Affidavits or (2) by the court itself
consulting or consent with indigent litigant about
the case proceed with section 1915. Failure by the
district to afford plaintiffs an opportunity to address the
court's sua sponte section 1915(e) motion to dismiss is, by
itself, grounds for reversal. See California Diversified
Promotions v. Musick. 505 F.2d 278 (9th Cir.
1974): Literature. Inc, v. Quinn. 482 F.2d 372 (1st Cir.
1973): Dodd v. Spokane County. Washineton, 393 F.2d
330 (9th Cir. 19681.
Dismissal of a case with section 1915
Despite the fact that neither of the two
interpretations of section 1915 (e) by different US
circuits
4
are not align with my case, they were used to
dismiss my case. This conflict between the
interpretations, however, is a matter of concern. The
Sixth Circuit and others, assert that ‘regardless of
the fees paid, the court can dismiss a lawsuit if the
plaintiff is incarcerated.’ This ruling, as seen in
Flovd v. US postal service.. 105 F. 3d 274 (6th Cir.
19971. stands in stark contrast to the perspective of
the Ninth and others. “Any claim that has a fee paid
should be protected from dismissal.” This is a point
that has been upheld in Franklin u. Murphy 745
F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 19841 and is of utmost
importance in this case.
US suprema’s court Standard requirement for
dismissing a case under section 1915€is frivolous
(A), Frivolous and Malicious dismissal Bell v.
Hood. 327 U.S. 678. 66 S.Ct. 773. 90 L.Ed.
939 (19461. the Supreme Court held that a trial court
cannot dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
claim until it has "assumed (B)jurisdiction over the
controversy." In this case, the district court explicitly
dismissed the complaint solary 'k'kic because "it ment*** Still, if it be assumed that the district court did
proceed under section 1915(e), for the reasons stated below,
and with due regard to the broad discretionary power vested
in a district court acting under section 1915(e) to dismiss a
forma pauperis proceeding as frivolous, it was error to
dismiss this action as frivolous, because the complaint
accompanied by state district court docket exhibits showing
the state court setting the hearing on July 16, 2019 to the
motion to dismiss that was not filed (ghost motion) until
July 26, 2019. see Infra 13a -conti
5
-ion conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs right to a fair
state court proceeding involved now former state
judge". Yet ruling was made before any adverse
party was joined in the litigation and rested solely on
the face of My complaint. It would appear, therefore,
that the Court had not assumed jurisdiction within
the meaning of Bell v. Hood Id Frivolous or
malicious. Thus, dismissal of the action was
premature.
In dismissing the complaint, the district court did
not state that the action is frivolous or malicious,
thereby invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Instead, the
court analyzed the complaint, cited authority and
held, in effect, that the complaint does not state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus, the
court, in practical effect, invoked on its own motion
Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This,
the court had the right to do if the proper procedural
steps were taken and if the determination is correct
on the merits. The district court overstepped in both
respects. There were two procedural deficiencies: (1)
The court did not permit issuance and service of
- cont. - state court docket entries. See also infra 31a
04/10/2019
NTAPR - Notice of Appearance
8
04/17/2019
FAULTY - Faulty Document Notice
9
04/25/2019
AFSR - Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate O
07/16/2019
AFSR - Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate O
10
11
itdsN
12
13
07/26/2019
DCLR - Declaration
6
process as required by Rule 4(a), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; and (2) The court acted upon the
complaint without notice to me as plaintiff of the
proposed action, and without affording me an
opportunity to at least submit a written argument in
opposition thereto. See Armstrons v. Rushins, 9
Cir., 352 F.2d 836, 837 See also, Wallen u. Rhay, 9
Cir., 354 F.2d 241; Harmon v. Superior Court. 307 F.2d
796, 798 (9 Cir., 1962)
OPINIONS BELOW
The original opinion of the court of appeals is
available as unpiublished opinion USCA 23-35345.
App. 2a-3a. The denial of rehearingen. Pet. App. la. e
United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Pet. App. 15a-24a.
JURISDICTION
There is No State, lower federal court or forum to
address the issues discribed in this petition other
than this court, all possible avenues were exhusted
after the court of Appeals rejecting rehearing enbanc as untimely while mail reciept shows within the
time, jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28
USC §1651.
CONSTITUTIONAL, RULES AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
The Act 28 USC §1691 All writ and process from
a court of the United State shall be under the seal of
the court and signed by the clerk thereof. 28 USC
§1915 is governs the party proceeding without pay in
forma pauperis not where the $405 fee has been paid
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Factual background
I filed an original complaint regarding this cause of
7
action in the District Court of the Western District of
Washington in Seattle on August 23, 2022. I
submitted the original complaint along with a money
order for $405.00 through USPS mail. Following this,
I requested the court's permission to serve a copy of
the complaint and summons to Era Living via
certified mail with return receipt requested, as this
method of service is permitted in Washington state.
However, the District Court denied my request to
use USPS certified mail with return receipt
requested as proof of service. It’s important to note
that Wash. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 4(J) states that "the rule
does not exclude the use of other forms of process
authorized by law." Furthermore, RCW 23.95.450(2)
specifically authorizes serving defendants using
USPS and other couriers.
I called the district court clerk's office several
times to request a summon to return to me for
insurance. I even requested in writing and sent more
copies of summons for the clerk to stump and sign as
required in Fed.R.Cv.P 4(b): "on or after filing a
complaint, the plaintiff may present summons to the
the clerk must sign,
clerk for signature and seal
seal, and issue it to the plaintiff for service of process
to the defendant" Contrast to Fed.R.Cv.P 4b, the
clerk on each time I phoned their office, they
responded that "the Judge left an internal notice to
the clerk not to issue the summon to me." After I
demanded that the judge's notice should be docketed,
the district court instead dismissed the original
complaint, stating that it failed to state the claim for
relief upon which the court may grant because my
original complaint stated that Era Living conspired
8
with an individual with judicial immunity to deprive
my 14 the amendment constitution rights. The
injustice of the conspiracy, which was significantly
fueled by an ex-parte meeting to schedule a motion
hearing, which had not even been verbally filed in
court, was perpetuated by now-retired state judge
Laura Inveen, who had judicial immunity. After
completing the unopposed Appellant brief, the
appeal citation remains blank because the district
court clerk refused to provide a copy. On April 2,
2024, the Panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the district court's decision to dismiss the
case, primarily on the grounds that I had sued the
judge. Despite my complaint clearly identifying Era
Living as a private entity, the appellate court should
have noticed that the summons to Era Living were
never returned to me for service. See infra 9a The
Ninth Circuit referred to the record in the appeals,
incorrectly stating that I had sued the judge. It is
important to note that this is the same record the
district court refused to provide me.
On April 11, 2023, the district court ordered me
to amend my original complaint within 14 days while
refusing to return the summon copy. The order
specified that my amended complaint must present a
cognizable claim for relief; otherwise, under § 1915e,
the court would dismiss the action. Upon receiving
the panel's decision on April 2, 2024, I took
immediate action and submitted a petition for
rehearing en banc eleven days later, on April 13,
2024. The purpose of this petition was to seek the
consensus of all circuit judges on whether the district
court in the Ninth Circuit should dismiss a paid
private case before the defendant is served.
9
Although the circuit's response took 100 days a delay
that significantly impacted the case—it was
important to note that my submission of the petition
for rehearing en banc on April 13, 2024, was prompt,
occurring within eleven days, rather than over the
fourteen allowed.
On the 13th day following the April 11 order, I
submitted an amended complaint (dist.dkt 9 see also
Infra 10a) that corrected typographical errors
without altering the pleadings or facts. However,
while this amended complaint was in transit via
USPS, the court, in a move that can only be
described as unfair, ordered to dismiss the case on
April 27, 2023, claiming that I had yet to file the
amended complaint within the 14-day timeframe
stipulated in the April 11 order. Upon receiving the
panel's decision on April 2, 2024, I took immediate
action and submitted a petition for rehearing en
banc eleven days later, on April 13, 2024. The
purpose of this petition was to seek the consensus of
all circuit judges on whether the district court in the
Ninth Circuit should dismiss a paid private case
before the defendant is served. Although the circuit's
response took 100 days—a delay that significantly
impacted the case—it was important to note that my
submission of the petition for rehearing en banc on
April 13, 2024, was prompt, occurring within eleven
days, rather than over the fourteen allowed.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
District court clerk refuse to return the signed
and seal Summon for issuance demanding
unless the complaint is amended
The case was dismissed following a series of events.
10
I repeatedly requested that the district court clerk
mail me a signed and sealed summons, (see Appx 9)
However, the clerk's refusal to do so significantly
impacted the case, as they stated they would only
return the summons if I amended my complaint.
Consequently, I was unable to serve the process, (see
infra 9a) which led to the dismissal of the case
without the defendant's objection. I urge the court to
order the district court to return the summons or
refund the $405 court fee, as they represent Era
Living themselves. Your intervention is crucial in
this matter. The court of appeals agreed with the
district court that my complaint alleged that Era
Living conspired with the state judge to schedule a
hearing for the motion to dismiss. See infra lla-31a
This scheduling occurred without any formal or
verbal motion to dismiss being filed by the defendant
beforehand. All of this unfolded because the district
court clerk insisted on an amendment to the
complaint while refusing to return the signed
summons. See infra 9a or dist.dkt 1 and 6
Section 1915(e) Conflict interpretations by
different circuit did not apply to my private
lawsuit despite used it to dismiss the lawsuit
Despite the fact that neither of the two
interpretations of section 1915 (e) by different US
circuits align with my case, they were used to
dismiss my case. This conflict between the
interpretations, however, is a matter of concern.
The Sixth Circuit and others, assert that ‘regardless
of the fees paid, the court can dismiss a lawsuit if the
plaintiff is incarcerated.’ This ruling, as seen in
Flovd v. US postal service.. 105 F. 3d 274 (6th Cir.-
11
- 1997). stands in stark contrast to the perspective of
the Ninth and others. “Any claim that has a fee paid
should be protected from dismissal.” This is a point
that has been upheld in Franklin v. Murphy 745
F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) and is of utmost
importance in this case.
It is disheartening to see that the Western
District of Washington district court, which falls
under your circuit and utilizes Franklin's
interpretation, has disregarded this interpretation
and dismissed the suit. Additionally, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has overlooked its own
interpretation despite the $405 fee evidenced by
receipt #S-28 (see infra 9a) in the docket the district
court ruled this as Informa Paupera in an effort to
help Era living. See Infra 6a
The District Court Clerk refused to Give Me
Copy of Electronic Record in Appeals Court
After the district court dismissed the case, I filed
a notice of appeal and requested records from the
district court clerk. To my surprise, the clerk
redirected me to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
clerk for the record, providing only a district court
docket sheet.
It’s important to note that when I contacted the
district court clerk to return the signed summons,
the clerk refused, stating that the judge had left a
memo instructing them to tell me to amend the
complaint; otherwise, I would not receive the
summons back. However, the docket sheet did not
include any notes or memos from the judge. See
Infra 9a-10a
12
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took one
hundred days, from April 2, 2024, to July 10,
2024, to inform me that my petition for
rehearing en banc, which I submitted on April
13, 2024, was untimely.
After receiving the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals panel’s decision affirming (see infra 2a-3a)
the district court's refusal to return the summons
due to the complaint failing to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted, this decision was made
on April 2, 2024. see infra 2a-3a 4 On April 13, 2024,
I mailed my petition for rehearing en banc. See Infra
32a attached USPS receipt dated April 13, 2024 to
San Fransco.CA) I waited until July 10, 2024, when
the court rejected my petition as untimely. See infra
la the 11-day timeline from April 2, 2024, to April 13,
2024, is crucial in determining the timeliness of my
petition, and I needed clarification on how it is
considered more than 14 days(untimely). Upon
thorough review, it became clear that the Ninth
Circuit Court's 100-day delay appeared to be a
strategic maneuver to consume the 90 days allowed
for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
Supreme Court. This tactic, resulting in my petition
for rehearing en banc being deemed untimely,
constitutes a clear violation of Supreme Court Rule
13.3. I have retained the USPS receipts for this case,
which serve as irrefutable evidence that my petition
was submitted on time. This situation leads me to
suspect that Era Living's indirect influence over the
court officers’ mirrors what occurred when the case
was in Washington State court. I am left with a
profound sense of injustice and a growing distrust
12
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took one
hundred days, from April 2, 2024, to July 10,
2024, to inform me that my petition for
rehearing en banc, which 1 submitted on April
13, 2024, was untimely.
After receiving the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals panel’s decision affirming (see infra 2a-3a)
the district court's refusal to return the summons
due to the complaint failing to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted, this decision was made
on April 2, 2024. see infra 2a-3a 4 On April 13, 2024,
I mailed my petition for rehearing en banc. See Infra
32a attached USPS receipt dated April 13, 2024 to
San Fransco.CA) I waited until July 10, 2024, when
the court rejected my petition as untimely. See infra
la the 11-day timeline from April 2, 2024, to April 13,
2024, is crucial in determining the timeliness of my
petition, and I needed clarification on how it is
considered more than 14 days(untimely). Upon
thorough review, it became clear that the Ninth
Circuit Court's 100-day delay appeared to be a
strategic maneuver to consume the 90 days allowed
for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
Supreme Court. This tactic, resulting in my petition
for rehearing en banc being deemed untimely,
constitutes a clear violation of Supreme Court Rule
13.3. I have retained the USPS receipts for this case,
which serve as irrefutable evidence that my petition
was submitted on time. This situation leads me to
suspect that Era Living's indirect influence over the
court officers’ mirrors what occurred when the case
was in Washington State court. I am left with a
profound sense of injustice and a growing distrust
14
the issue of dismissing non frivolous or malice case
before the defendant saved the process.
The petition for a writ of Mandamus should be gahd
Respectfully submitted
*
• V
inMandawala
Post Office box 5512
San Antonio,
Texas 78201
Pro-se Petitioner
October 4, 2024
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.