Yi Tai Shao v. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California, et al.

Does May 17, 2022 Order of California Supreme Court violate the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution pursuant to Ringgold Lockhert v. County of L.A., 781 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.

in that it willfully delayed adjudication by 3 months and used a voidable prefiling order that has not met any requirements of Ringgold to block Petitioner’s fundamental right to access the court on her habeas corpus petition that concerns imminent child safety and unlawful child custody confinement with a summary denial? The requirements are the court must (1) give litigant notice and “an opportunity to oppose the order before it is entered, (2) compile an adequate record for appellate review, including “a list of all the cases and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed”; (3) make substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as “to closely fit the specific vice encountered.”

Should Habeas Corpus be granted under the circumstances that Petitioner has been deprived of child custody in violation of due process since August 4, 2010, delayed child custody return by fraudulent dismissal of her child custody appeal (H040395) by 4.5 years, and unlawfully blocked access to the family case since 2016 with a Prefiling Order in a way violated due process and the child safety