Petitioner, Admassu Regassa, a DC inmate and pro se indigent prisoner currently confined in a federal facility at FCC Petersburg, Virginia, initiated his combined civil rights (Bivens) and FTCA action in regards to the conditions of his confinement and deprivation of his multiple Constitutional rights (his First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights) by respondents, several defendant prison officials at his previous institution (USP Marion, Illinois) who acted under the color of federal law. In his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 29), Regassa asserted clear and legitimate and viable [actionable] Constitutional claims against the Bivens Defendants and clear and legitimate and viable [actionable] FTCA claims against the United States. However, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed Regassa's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) in its entirety with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit improperly affirmed the district court's erroneous decisions and Order and final judgment (Docs. 31 & 32). With this general backdrop of information, should the United States Supreme Court intervene in this matter and exercise its supervisory role and review the lower courts' decisions and grant Regassa's petition for a writ of certiorari because

A) as the Highest Court of the land, the United States Supreme Court has discretion and jurisdiction and judicial authority and Constitutional prerogatives to uphold and to protect, among other things, basic human rights and dignity and fundamental Constitutional rights of [Regassa] indigent pro se prisoner and

B) the district court erroneously dismissed Regassa's Second Amended Complaint (Doc 29) in its entirety with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit improperly affirmed the district court's erroneous decisions and Order and final judgment (Docs. 31 & 32)?

C) there are several compelleing reasons and questions of exceptional importance and the decisions of the district court and the panel conflict with the decisions of (i) the United States Supreme Court (ii) the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (iii) other United States Courts of Appeals that addressed these issues?

Whether the district court erroneously dismissed the petitioner's Second Amended Complaint and the Seventh Circuit improperly affirmed the dismissal