1) I F it Confuses my litagation
under Distr
ict court rute 636. jurisdiction , powers
and temporany assigwment 5b). a judge has
power to desigrate a megistrate judge, examphili.
sette Reid? why?
tial, if man is'st to be compelled to hareren
tyranny and
oppression?
3.) why
does the Supreme
Count
agree with the
right's of
people because thre incarcerated?
4.) keeping
io mind the Court does wot act as
researcher investagator on a scavenger hunt.
ow behelf of a plaintiff, ex plaiving Court's
may not act as a litigant's lawyertco-
nstruct the party's theory of liability from
ut's abide this practice?
5.) why does the cont's hane the inherent
power
a case sua sponte whew the plaintiff fail's to
comply with procedural rule's?
B may 1981).See Hana 05.Flovida,599 F. App'X
362,363 (11ThCir.2O15)(CitiNg Fe.R.CiV. P.4/③):
Chamberis U5.Nasco,ine.501 U.5.4.5.32,48-491.
1991).
6.) Al though the Count's must liberally Construe
pro Se pleading's, in accordence with Haives vs.
Keraer, 404 u.5.519,52011972), pr0 Se pleading's
are Nowetheless required to contoun their plea.
dings to
363,why?
whetter
complaint is subject to dismissal under
a
Fed.R.Civ. P. 12bx6) apply's.
to dismissal under
Complaint's, pursnent to 28us.C. 1915A, the COurt's mnst apply Standand's set forth in Fed.R.civ.
P.12bl6). set s0 high, nanely out ofreach to
uneducated Litagant?
8.) If pro se litagant's are held to"less standand's thaw Fanal pleading's drafted by lawyers
and caw only be dismissedtr failue to state
a
laint Contain eithier divect or inferential allagation's. respecting all the material eclements
Necessary to Sustaiw a recovery. Estelle vs.Eamble,429 4.5. 97,10611979).5eR0evs.anare w0Cir.2001), Cert. dewied, 5344. 5. 1129(2002)?
obligations to provide the
9.) Thus, a
plaintiff
than mere label's and cowclusions. a "formore
malaic
recitation of thee elements
of
a Cause of
action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corpvs, twonbly,
550 u.5. at 555. Concusory Statenents, without
La(01
Dismissal on these
gronnd's why is the Gor
allowed to order whew legal theovie's arVeeNmeNt
14 on factunal allegations that are "Clearly baseless."Id. Dismissal, becanse it Count's as infr

Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the court's inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte