1. Should this Court resolve the long standing problem that Rulel2(b)(6) motions should be dramatically modified due to the following; 1) the rule demand the exercise of uniquely subjective or normative judgements that allows a pro se civil right complaint to be denied fully with prejudice without a hearing or notice to amend; 2) the rule as it stands, allows an erroneous district court decision to be upheld through the appellate court without a hearing or leave to amend; 3) the rule as it stands, enables court decisions to be grounded on the moving party errors of fact and law, while disregarding the nonmoving party 's findings of facts, all of which deny due process, contribute to wasteful and unnecessary litigation? Tolan v. Cotton 572 U.S. (2014)

2. Under Monell v Department of Social Seiuices, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a municipality may be held liable under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 only for its own unconstitutional acts except "In limited circumstances, " such as when a municipality is on notice of a pattern or practice of unconstitutional acts.

In the decision below, the District Court concluded that The Town of Oak Bluffs could not be held liable for the Town Officials, Town Counsel and Boards -widespread, continual egregious acts that caused violation of a resident 's constitutional property rights.

Should a municipality be protected from liability when it conspired over a 5-year period through a pattern or practice of unconstitutional acts against a private resident by: Town Counsel; the Town Administrator; the Chief Assessor; the Building Inspector; the Water Department, the Zoning Board, and Selectmen, individual and collective acts that violated the resident 's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the 5th and 14th Amendments?

Should Rule 12(b)(6) motions be modified?