Abrahim Fata v. Abraham Ortiz, et al.

PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 12.4, this single petition seeks review of six judgments from the same court involving identical or closely related questions:

1. The Misjoinder Conflict (Rule 21): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which mandates that "misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action," prohibits a court from dismissing a pro se litigant’s personal claims with prejudice solely because the litigant improperly attempted to join or represent his minor children.

2. The "Self-Adjudication" Conflict (28 U.S.C. § 144): Whether a district judge violates the mandatory "shall proceed no further" command of § 144 by personally adjudicating the sufficiency of a bias affidavit against himself, rather than referring the matter to another judge for assignment as required by statute.

3. Abuse of the "Frivolous" Standard: Whether a court violates the "factual frivoldusness" standard established in Denton v. Hernandez by "piercing the veil" of a complaint to find it "irrational" when the petitioner has provided twelve corroborating documents establishing the factual reality of the underlying incident.

4. The Jurisdictional Characterization Error: Whether a court violates the Due Process Clause and the "less stringent standard" for pro se litigants (Haines v. Kerner) by reframing a complaint explicitly initiated under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as a standard 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim to apply "state action" and Heckv. Humphrey bars that are inapplicable to racketeering claims.

5. The "Counsel Mandate" Catch-22 (Rule 17): Whether the automatic dismissal of minor children's constitutional claims—solely because the indigent parent is proceeding pro se—violates the minor's right of meaningful access to the courts under the Fourteenth Amendment.