Saied Emami v. Jim Bridenstine, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, et al.

The following questions arise from employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e § et ("Title VII"), concerning several errors of law that compounded and perpetuated throughout the pleadings and eventually impacting the trial that culminated to "procedural due process violation" of the petitioner's 5th Amendment. Aside from the Respondant's three counsels and magistrate judge, two other district judges whose legal findings and decisions were vital in the petitioner's case, contributed to the petitioner case. A senior district judge, who had reviewed the magistrate judge's findings and legal contentions, wrote an "Opinion" on March 10, 2017 and a corrected legal findings and legal contentions of the magistrate judge. Additionally, the senior judge wrote a detailed "AMENDED RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER" on April 10, 2017. The other district judge was a trial judge who appointed to preside over the trial just a month before the trial date on August 1, 2017. Trial started about two years and six months after the petitioner's complaint was filed in the district court. Whether the Respondent's counsel that failed to comply with the District Court Scheduling Order necessarily violate procedural due process rights of the petitioner such that the petitioner is barred from