Whether the decision of the 11th Circuit violates Petitioners Chaslie Lawrence and Petrice Ricks rights as beneficiaries to allow and select enjoining siblings as claimant 's and part of real parties ' litigants in a negligence civil action under the interpleader statute; and if so, and because no medical malpractice and wrongful death claims was named, Did the Lower Court usage of Georgia State law was in error abridging Petitioners ' right to full access and jurisdiction of the Court?

2. The Supreme Court is asked to review minimal diversity of having at least one party to the suit citizenship and domicile different from one party to the citizenry and domicile under the new standards of constitutionality as oppose to the statutory deter minants; if so, can enjoined parties to a federal lawsuit have the same entitlements of recognition party to the suit? If both conditions are rele- as a vant and the parties never apply a state law or tort the enjoined parties considered real claim, are persons having an interest in the lawsuit and claims?

3. Did the 11th Circuit err when they excluded the domicile and citizenry of diverse litigants Gwen Lawrence, Gregory Lawrence, Charlie Lawrence Jr. and Petrice Ricks as enjoined litigants under the Interpleader statute permissibility pursuant to Judicial Code § 41 (26)(a)(i)(a), Article III, § 2. U.S.A Constitution.

4. Petitioners request for review is taken with understanding the High Could elect to not review and that such review would have to be for compelling reasons. Petitioners know other reasons that could move the Court to consider a case when life and death are involved under which institutions that are professionally trained supposed to exer cise proper care for citizenry

Whether the 11th Circuit violated petitioners' rights as beneficiaries to allow and select enjoining siblings as claimants and real parties in a negligence civil action under the interpleader statute