Charles G. Kinney v. Clerk, Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, et al.

By simultaneously dismissing 8 of Kinney's pending appeals, did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion by violating Janus and NIFLA to cover-up acts by a state appellate court clerk and presiding Justices who refused to assign an appellate number for Kinney's 2012 appeal, and to punish "defendant" Kinney in a 2001 state court case because of his "professional speech", so they joined forces to compel silence on Kinney? Kinney's speech was "professional speech" to the clerk and Justices who didn't adjudicate disputes, but acted as prosecutors under color of authority; refused to do a ministerial act; and ignored violations of state nuisance law and/or federal Clean Water Act law ("CWA") by "plaintiff' Three Arch Bay Corn. Serv. District so that Kinney was deprived of his federal civil rights and the "honest services" of the state and/or federal courts, and/or suffered violations of the Hobbs Act. Was this dismissal an abuse of discretion by a panel acting as prosecutors under color of law? Did this appeal (8 of 8) have "merit" because it challenged ongoing nuisances and/or federal CWA violations by "plaintiff' Three Arch Bay CSD? Did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion by ignoring 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 federal civil rights violations to the detriment of a "defendant" and repeated violations of state and/or federal laws?