Ardy Merritt v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.

Does the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit have the right to redefine words - (frivolous) - as noted in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, in which the word ‘law’ is noted in the word’s definition (of little weight or importance : having no basis in law or fact) in which because an infraction is noted in the state’s criminal liability statutes - felonies - Cal. penal code 459 - “Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code,” (the infraction continues with relevant stipulations). Continuing on with “when doors are locked” (infraction continues on with other relevant stipulations) “or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary,” as such, the defined word dictates gravity of importance concerning the law and infraction; and the word moot - (to deprive of practical significance; I requested an injunction concerning state court results; (deprived of submitting a trial brief;) moot, as used by the appeals court can only be considered as a consequence of the court’s actions in determining case number 24-5400 as being frivolous by the court’s standards; is an under simplified (illogical) explanation: Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651, 143 S.Ct. 1322, May 25, 2023, “(CWA) extends to more than traditional navigable water, the use of “navigable” shows that Congress focused on its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable ” “Statutes - Context, The meaning of a word in a statute may only become evident when placed in context.” Such is not evident in definition or legal contents. Does the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit have the right to over simplify (not of importance) a state’s felony infractions (Cal. Penal code 459) in dismissing the above noted case which sends a perception of condoning the illegal entries into my former residence and not acknowledging the federal agency concerned was advised by me in which SB Mann 3 LLC, the property owner, was being sent emails concerning the illegal entries and never addressed the problem and would always disavow ‘squatters’ were being allowed to reside on property premises by other (alleged) tenants, and both (alleged) tenants being a culprit concerning the illegal entries? Plaintiff cites Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525 148 L.Ed.2d 388, December 12, 2000, noted in the synopsis, “District Court of Appeals certified