Pamela Short Powell, Individually and on Behalf of Diana Lynn Short, Margaret Julia Short, Daniel Alan Short, and Jack Warren Short, Jr. v. Anthony Decicco, et al.

A. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not addressing whether the district court should have first ruled on a motion for recusals about several conflict issues raised before issuing a sua sponte dispositive judgment. B. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not ruling the issuance of a sua sponte dispositive judgment irregularly out-of-sequence of all filings with the Clerk of Court records that retroactively captured prior filings to be deemed moot. C. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not considering Plaintiffs’ appeal brief, including twenty-six (26) cases and twenty-eight (28) rules and statutes/ Acts in its decision since it only reiterated language authored by the district court, never specifically mentioned any arguments of Plaintiffs’ and never cites any of Plaintiffs’ supporting cases. D. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by ratifying the moot nature of a prior motion for recusals without considering the sequence of filings in the records held by the keeper of records, Clerk of Court, and that there was sufficient reason for the district court judge to recuse himself, based on customary conflicts of interests fisted, a bribery scheme involving real estate he fisted as his Homestead Exempted residence which steeply devalued on a redfin.com online price graph upon the time the district court case was filed which reversed to increase in value concurrent with the case being dismissed, sua sponte, and continued to increase so long as the case was remaining dismissed. E. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not determining the district court attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs’ inherent rights to appeals in his sua sponte dismissal by stating the case was “CLOSED” and this false allegation was evidence of his biases and the bribery scheme ensuing for his personal enrichments so long as he kept the case dismissed. F. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by not ruling it was improper for the district court to avoid ruling on a recusals request which denial would become appealable.