Charles G. Kinney v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Did this Ninth Circuit panel abuse its discretion when acting as prosecutors of Kinney by issuing a global pre-filing review order only 22 days after the exact same panel dismissed 8+ of Kinney's pending appeals on Dec. 28, 2017? Did this Ninth Circuit panel abuse its discretion by dismissing 8+ pending appeals, all on Dec. 28, 2017, to cover-up 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 violations of Kinney's civil rights by some state courts and federal district courts (i.e. that have been acting as prosecutors of Kinney from 2008 to present, not as neutral adjudicators of disputes)? Did this Ninth Circuit panel intentionally issue its pre-filing order within 22 days to cover-up civil rights violations against Kinney (e.g. before 5 existing plus 2 future vacancies are filled)? Did this panel unfairly deny Kinney's First Amendment rights to file subsequent motions for reconsideration, rehearing or clarification for the Ninth Circuit's Jan. 19, 2018 pre-filing order? Did this panel deny Kinney the "honest services" of the judiciary by their prosecutorial acts during these 22 days (e.g. violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1346)? Did this panel violate the Hobbs Act since their prosecutorial acts were "robbery" or "extortion" of Kinney's property(ies) that were used in his interstate commerce businesses (e.g. reputation, goodwill, reduction of assets and capital)?