WHETHER THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DEVIATED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WHEN THEY DENIED PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR NOT PROVIDING ANY NEW ARGUMENT EVIDENCE WHEN PLAINTIFF DID PROVIDE THE PROPER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO BE APPLIED AND PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE NAMED DEFENDANTS DID COMMIT THE VIOLATIONS NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH WAS IN THE ORDER TO DISMISS THE CASE TO MAKE A FACTUAL SHOWING THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT TIME BARRED AND PROOF OF THE INFRACTION PROVIDED IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH CREATED A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION XIV AMENDMENT AND VIOLATED F.S. 95.11(2)

WHETHER THE U.S. MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT (OCALA) ABUSED ITS. DISCRETION AND DEVIATED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WHEN THEY DENIED PLAINTIFF A C.O.A., ALLEGING THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS TIME BARRED BY A 4 YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND BASING ITS DECISION SOLELY ON THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT WHEN THERE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND A REASONABLE JURIST COULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY RAMSEY V. FUENTES 858 F.3d 1360 (11TH CIR. 2017); U.S. 322, 336 123 S.CT 1029, 154 L.ED.2D 931 (2003) AND BUCK V. DAVIS, 137 S. CT. 759, 775, 197 L. ED. 2D 1 (2017) WHICH CREATES DEVIATION FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW VIOLATING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DUE PROCESS AFFORDED BY THE XIV AMENDMENT AND F.S. 95.11 (1);

Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal abused its discretion and deviated from the essential requirements of law