Court filing restrictions

1. Whether a State may impose civil disabilities — including a vexatious-litigant designation, a prefiling order, and a $150,000 security requirement — based on an order issued by a temporary judge who lacked jurisdiction under Article VI, § 21 of the California Constitution, and which omitted all findings required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b). 2. Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments are violated when a State denies a litigant any meaningful opportunity for appellate review— where the Court of Appeal summarily denied relief, and the Supreme Court of California refused to permit filing —thereby preventing review of a jurisdictionally void order. 3. Whether the arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of California’s vexatious-litigant statutes — including the acceptance of inadmissible hearsay, the rejection of competent personal knowledge testimony, the failure to rule on evidentiary objections, and the imposition of a security requirement unsupported by admissible evidence — violates due process and renders the statutory scheme unconstitutionally vague as applied.