Hector L. Valentin v. City of Rochester, New York, et al.

Should the Brady Rule versus a self-decided Judicial ethical issue by a seriously conflicted Federal Judge and involving the same disclosure rule as prosecutors' under Brady, also apply to a presiding Federal Judge who also suppresses exculpatory and damaging material from a Pro Se litigant's civil rights lawsuit that has the unconstitutional potential for bias and denied this Pro Se Petitioner's Constitutional Due Process right to know of this exculpatory information and also his Constitutional Due Process right to receive a fair Federal Civil Court Proceeding? SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED. For the public good and in the interest of equal justice, should the United States Supreme Court now consider setting a new precedent, similar to the Brady Rule, for all presiding Federal Judges to require them not only ethically but legally, as a matter of written law, to self­ reveal any prejudicially damaging or serious conflict of interest issues that is material to the fairness and outcome of any Pro Se litigant's Federal Civil Court proceeding? THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED For the public good and in the interest of equal justice, should the United States Supreme Court now consider setting a new precedent in order to prevent or deter Brady like Judicial abuse and to also provide a legal recourse, like Brady, against any presiding Federal Judge who also suppresses exculpatory evidence that they know or should have known was material to the fairness and outcome of their civil rights lawsuit as happened to this Pro Se Petitioner in his Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit, Valentin v City of Rochester and Monroe County et a I, WDNY 2011? FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED. Is the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution violated when the presiding Judge's adverse WDNY Summary Judgment Decision (Docket 157) was Judicially inconsistent with this Pro Se Petitioner's grant of a 2011 WDNY Habeas Corpus Grant (Valentin v Mazzuca) where the Habeas Judge also expunged this Pro Se Petitioner's convictions for egregious prosecutorial misconduct and ruled his NYS trial was a "House of Cards" as opposed to the WDNY Summary Judgment decision that not only impugned the other Judge's previous Habeas decision but also failed to take into