Access to the courts

1. Whether the Fifth Circuit's denial of mandamus —on the ground that Petitioner should first seek relief from the district judge — constitutes a denial of the constitutional right of access to courts, when the district judge has been barred by a filing injunction from receiving any filings from Petitioner, rendering that remedy structurally impossible and illusory. 2. Whether a magistrate judge's sua sponte imposition of a blanket filing injunction, without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, violates the procedural due process requirements established by the Fifth Circuit in Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1993), and conflicts with the approach of the D.C. Circuit, which has vacated overly broad filing restrictions. 3. Whether the appearance of bias created by the magistrate judge's conduct — including the rejection of twenty of Petitioner's twenty-seven filings before the hearing, the mockery of his sworn evidence as "Whack-A-Mole," the disparate treatment of a compliant pro se litigant versus non-compliant represented parties, and the unequal access to the hearing itself — requires recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and whether the district judge's failure to act on Petitioner's direct pleas for recusal and intervention for over seven months also requires recusal and reassignment. 4. Whether the court's refusal to produce the native Zoom video and ERO audio recording — when the written transcript is materially incomplete and sanitized — violates Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2) and the right to meaningful appellate review. 5. Whether the district court's denial of e-filing access and its unexplained labeling of Petitioner as a "security risk" — while represented parties received 24/7 electronic access — constitutes a wealth-based and status-based denial of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.