// Whether the extraodinary circumstances of a person being lawfully evicted by PFA order by the court one day after his unlawful eviction by state employees, denied him of a meaningful opportunity at a meaningful time to challenge the unlawful eviction and regain possession of his home when the unlawful act was random and unauthorized?

2. / Whether a person's procedural due process right is violated due to the arbitrary and deliberate unlawful eviction by municipal officials violating his pre deprivation due process right and the post deprivation remedy was rendered unmeaningful the very next day by a lawful evictionof the person ?

3. Whether the fundamental right of a person "to be secure in their persons, houses,. .. from unresonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated", would support a section 1983 procedural "due process" claim even when state post deprivation process were available ?

4. Whether the pro se, Appellant's third amended complaint was sufficient to state a claim in the pleading stage of a section 1983 complaint pursuant to the Supreme Court's Twombly formulation " that states .. this does not impose a plausibility requirement at the pleading stage, but instead simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element" ?

Whether the extraordinary circumstances of a person being lawfully evicted by PFA order by the court one day after his unlawful eviction by state employees, denied him of a meaningful opportunity at a meaningful time to challenge the unlawful eviction and regain possession of his home when the unlawful act was random and unauthorized?