Whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) plaintiffs appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second circuit, (Parker, Chin & Livingston, JJ.), violated plaintiffs right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to be meaningfully heard before the rendering of its decision?

Whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) plaintiffs appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Parker, Chin & Livingston, JJ.), violated plaintiffs right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by providing no rationales for all five of its five motion denials?

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915, entitled "Proceedings in forma pauperis," only applies to appeals permitted to be filed informa pauperis or does it extend to appeals in which the appellant requested permission to file his appeal in forma pauperis but in which the U.S. district court and the circuit court panel denied that permission?

Whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) plaintiffs appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Parker, Chin ,& Livingston, JJ.) erred in contravening unreversed U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (7-0) that determined that Due Process of Law requires a court considering dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to provide notice and an oral hearing to the plaintiff before taking the drastic action of case dismissal?

Whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) plaintiffs appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Parker, Chin & Livingston, JJ.) violated plaintiffs right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by barring petitioner to file an appeal by right with prepayment of the filing fee after determining that the petitioner was not eligible to file his appeal by right in/orma pauperis?

Whether Due'Process of Law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a case similar to one in which the U.S. Supreme Court identified it as 'quasi-criminal" justifies appointment of pro bono counsel?

Given that the only evidence entered into the case are plaintiffs multitudinous affidavits and defendants' solitary affidavit of Town of Bethlehem police officer Craig Sleurs in support of defendant Craig Sleurs' motion for summary judgment that does not contradict the material points of plaintiffs affidavits, whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) plaintiffs appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Parker, Chin & Livingston. JJ.) violated plaintiffs right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by determining there is no arguable basis in fact for plaintiffs claims, i.e. can the appellate panel infer plaintiff perjury without an evidential basis supporting the panel's conclusion?

8. Given that the U.S. district court determined that plaintiffs case had both an arguable basis in law and in fact in at least one of plaintiffs claims, whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U

Whether the panel violated plaintiff's right to due process