Rebecca Wu v. Gina Carreon, et al.

Does a state court violate the Fourteenth Amendment when it denies a first-time brief extension for a Second Cure letter on a Opening Brief by an Appellant whom is struggling from homelessness, Moved out the month before from a Homeless shelter, medically distressed, literally recent diagnosis with Depression for the first time in her life, very low income pro per litigant, severe visual impairment, housing instability, and multiple overlapping state and federal court deadlines, and immediately dismisses their active appeal with no extra days even given ? Whether a state court violates the First Amendment’s Right to Petition and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying a nominal 14-day extension to format a brief and summarily dismissing an appeal with prejudice, where a destitute, self-represented litigant demonstrates that her operational capacity was completely consumed by concurrently filing multiple active constitutional petitions against government entities. Whether a state appellate court violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by imposing the terminal sanction of dismissal with prejudice against a self-represented (pro per) litigant over non-jurisdictional, technical layout and formatting defects—including missing electronic PDF bookmarks, record citation formatting, missing statements of appealability, and table of contents pagination misalignments—where the litigant timely submitted her opening briefs and filed a proper request for a short extension for the second cure letter detailing acute medical and housing crises and other cases briefs due.

Is such Court Practice "Uniquely Harsh" and Deprives Due Process? IS a 14-day cure period for a homeless person undergoing a mental health crisis is a statistical impossibility. Without any right to extension?

Would a notice of a few days given to turn in the brief from the extension be required if the First time request for a Second cure letter did not have any statement that no extensions would be allowed?

Can state court uses an inflexible, rapid-fire dismissal mechanism to terminate an appeal before a cure brief can even be filed, and does it creates an unconstitutional "trap for the unwary" that effectively dismantles the Right to due process and for cases like this case where all the cases were on government actors or agencies for corruption, the does it deny Right to Petition the Government under the First Amendment.?

Whether a state court violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the First Amendment’s Right to Petition by utilizing a subsequent, unrelated "vexatious litigant" pre-filing order as a sub-rosa, retroactive mechanism to dismiss independent, pre-existing lawsuits, all relating to government agencies or actors in claims of corruption or serious widespread violation of children's rights, filed years before the entry of such restrictive order?