Dots the fact that the district court failed to state in writing its reasons for certifying that Petitioner seeking to proceed in pauperis could not be taken in good faith; along with the fact that the district court did not dismiss Petitioner's claim as rivolous; but for failure to state a claim amount to an erroneous certification of lack of good faith?

Was the district court's departure from any of the multiple and varying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as presented in this petition, of an overriding policy resulting in manifest injustice?

Was the district court's failure to give Petitioner leave to amend his pro se complaint a manifest injustice rendering the court's judgment on the merits of the claim voidable?

Whether the district court's failure to state its reasons for certifying that the petitioner could not proceed in forma pauperis in good faith, along with the failure to dismiss the claim as frivolous but rather for failure to state a claim, amounts to an erroneous certification of lack of good faith