Whether or not the Supreme Court has clearly established uniformity precedent to all lower courts that all procedure due rights of pro - se litigants for reason sufficient having filed for application to leave under 28 USC § 1915 screening granted prepayment of courts fees, should be treated the same as paying litigants represented by counsel, and if certified indigent civil litigants first pleading affidavit effects a substantial cause of action, nevertheless, the imposed judicial discretion of a sua sponte dismissal of a Article III cause, can without arguable basis classify the meritious complaint sufficiency, that the to the extent the court clearly stated it understands the litigants reasons for filing the complaint, can latter assert a predetermined directional fraudulent analysis of the facts and misapplied law, the cause as simply frivolous, contrary to the judicature due course inherent application of orderly concepts afforded, disregarding the purview of ordinary citizenry constitutional rights, privileges, liberties and immunities, clearly circumvented the proper disposition of the cause. short - circuited constitutional jurisprudence, statutory application omissions, a jettison of case laws or conflict of newly established precedents administration of constitutional justice, rendered without constituted jurisdiction over all parties absence service of process, pursuant to the federal rule, strongly suggest irreparable due process of law deprivation?

Whether the Supreme Court has clearly established uniformity precedent for pro-se litigants' procedural due process rights under 28 USC § 1915 screening for prepayment of court fees, and if certified indigent civil litigants' first pleading affidavit effects a substantial cause of action, yet the court can sua sponte dismiss the Article III cause as frivolous