WHETHER THE SITTING PANEL FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, PER-. CURIAM OPINION, AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ON PETITIONER'S PRO SE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE CLAIM UNDER BIVEN lS, BRINGS ABOUT INTRA-CIRCUIT CONFLICT, WHERE, THE PANEL FAILED TO PROPERLY ANALYZE PETITIONER'S DELAY OR DENIAL OF ADEQUATE TREATMENT CLAIM ACCORDING TO BINDING THIRD CIRCUIT PRECEDENTS, AFTER THE ORIGINAL COURT FOUND PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLIAM AGAINST RESPONDENT?

WHETHER THE-BOP'S PRACTICE OF REQUIRING FEDERAL PRISONER'S TO PURCHASE MEDICATION AT THE COMMISSARY, IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONCEPT OF ADQUATE MEDICAL CARE, THEREBY, RUNNING AFOUL OF THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN ESTELLE V. GAMBLE , 429 US 97 (1976)?

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION .-IMPROPERLY/ OVERLOOKED PETITIONER'S- SWRON TESTIMONY!, THUS', APPLYING THE WRONG LAW TO'PETITIONER'S FACTS?

WHETHER A BIVENS COMPLAINT FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND TO ALLEGE SUFFICENT FACTS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, PURSUANT TO FED.R.CVIiP. 12(b)(6), LATER BE DEEMED FRIVOLOUS BY A SUCCESSOR JUDGE,;AFTER DISCOVERY HAD CONCLUDED?

Whether the sitting panel for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court's entry of summary judgment on petitioner's pro se deliberate indifference claim under Bivens