Loni Nicole Granger, et al. v. Lauren J. King, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, et al.

Whether the Ninth Circuit violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due-process rights by summarily denying in-forma-pauperis status and dismissing three related appeals as “frivolous” without addressing more than a dozen pending substantive motions.

'Whether the repeated re-labeling of duly filed writs of mandamus and sanctions motions as “miscellaneous pro se filings” constitutes a denial of meaningful appellate review.

Whether assigning the same judicial panel to all three appeals and issuing virtual'y identical dismissal orders violated the Ninth Circuit’s random-assignment procedures and the constitutional guarantee of impartial tribunals. PARTIES TO THE PROCEED'NG Petitioners: Loni Nicole Granger and Casey Michael Granger. Respondents: United States of America, et al. OPINIONS BELOW Unpublished memorandum dispositions and judgments entered October 7 and 9, 2025, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. JURISDICTION Judgments were entered October 7 and 9, 2025. This petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c). Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and Supreme Court Rule 12.4, as this petition seeks review of multiple related judgments involving the same parties and overlapping questions. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED U.S. Const, amend. V; 28 U.S.C § 19"15(e)(2); Ninth Circuit Internal Operating Procedures 6.1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioners filed three separate appeals—Nos. 25-2781,25-3342, and 25-3675—in the Ninth Circuit. Under governing procedures, each appeal should have been assigned randomly. Instead, all three were assigned to the same panel. The panel then issued three nearly identical memorandum dispositions within hours of each other, dismissing ail appeals as “frivolous.” The court did not address more than a dozen pending motions, including writs of mandamus and sanctions motions. The Clerk reclassified substantive filings as “miscellaneous pro se submissions,” preventing judicial review. These actions deprived petitioners of individualized appellate consideration and violated structural ruies designed to ensure impartiality.