Fairness in judge assignments

1. Whether a federal district court deprives a litigant of due process and systematically evades the strict statutory limits on magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and the mandatory disqualification requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 455 by utilizing a combined localized practice of: *(a) Withholding mandatory Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 notices while issuing judicial orders prior to the expiration of the statutory timeframe for party consent; and *(b) Deploying a telephonic, administrative “ referral judge ” mechanism to reassign a civil action to a magistrate judge who has already been formally disqualified and rejected by the parties? 2. Whether a federal district court violates a pro se litigant ’ s Fifth Amendment rights to due process and meaningful access to the courts by: *(a) Verbally designating an Article III judge at the filing counter while simultaneously executing a concealed electronic docket entry that reassigns the case and venue to a different division without notice, a hearing or a showing of good cause, in violation of 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391 and 1404; *(b) Permitting an unconsented magistrate judge to summarily deny a request for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class counsel as moot; and *(c) Issuing official, written administrative guidelines regarding service of process that are defective, deceptively vague, or contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby inducing a foreseeable procedural default? 3. Whether a United States Court of Appeals abdicates its supervisory duties and violates the Due Process Clause under Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90 (1967) by summarily denying a petition for a writ of mandamus via a boilerplate order devoid of any factual or legal analysis, where the petitioner has demonstrated a structural violation of 28 U.S.C. Section 292(d) stemming from a chief judge ’ s failure to certify a motion to disqualify an entire local federal bench?