Igor Lukashin v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Whether the Ninth Circuit has been denying Due Process by applying a purportedly categorical rule, RamirezAleiandre v. Ashcroft. 320 F.3d 858, 875 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), allegedly supported by Padgett v. Wright. 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) to thousands of pro se appeals, a-la secret policy in Schexnavder u. Vannoy, 140 S. Ct. 354 (U.S. 2019) (Sotomayor, J.), when this Court’s and the circuit’s actual waiver / forfeiture law has discretion, e.g. In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation. 50 F. 4th 769, 782 n. 9 (9th Cir. 2022)?

Whether the Ninth Circuit retaliated against Lukashin for repeatedly bringing the “Padgett fraud” to that court’s attention via Circuit Rule 36-4 requests for publication and motions to intervene, e.g. California River Watch v. City of Vacaville. 14 F.4th 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2021), intervention denied by amended opinion. 39 F.4th 624 (9th Cir. 2022) (“CRW”), via a pre-filing review order and denying reconsideration, all without following requirements of binding circuit precedent (Molski / DeLong / Ringgold) or engaging with Lukashin’s arguments.