Whether Mr. Perez can amend his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 and 15(c) F.R.C.P., to allege that a State cannot exclude a person from the practice of medicine in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sch ware v. Board Bar Examiners NewMexico, 353 U.S. 232 (1957), Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889).

Whether Mr. Perez can amend his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1653 and 15(c) F.R.C.P., to allege that the continued enforcement of an unconstitutional statute cannot be insulated by the statute of limitations. Va. Hosp. Ass'n v. Babies, 868 F.2d 653, 663 (4th Cir. 1989), affd sub nom. Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498 (1990).

Whether The Fifth Circuit erred when it ruled that a Federal Fifth Amendment Takings Claim must be filed within the two year statute of limitations imposed by Texas on 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions.

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred when it ruled that a good faith reliance on Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n V. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 194 (1985) was not considered an exceptional circumstance justifying tolling the statute of limitations.

Whether Mr. Perez can amend his complaint to allege that a State cannot exclude a person from the practice of medicine in a manner that contravenes the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause, whether the continued enforcement of an unconstitutional statute cannot be insulated by the statute of limitations, whether the Fifth Circuit erred in ruling that a Federal Fifth Amendment Takings Claim must be filed within the two year statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions, and whether the Fifth Circuit erred in ruling that good faith reliance on Williamson County was not an exceptional circumstance justifying tolling the statute of limitations