Appeal of Order granting Defendant - Appellees ' Motions to Dismiss & for Sanctions, and Judgment dismissing all claims on May 6, 2021 (5-6-21), by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas-Amarillo Division (ND 'TX); and Appeal of the Affirmation of the district-court 's finding on Oct. 27, 2021 (10-27-21) by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (5th-Cir.), based on improper factualfindings on behalf of the sophomoric district-court.

Required Showing (Issues & Standards presented for Review) — The main-issue is the liability of Defendant — Appellees for the violent-attack & subsequent maliciousprosecution of Correctional-Officer Murphy at his secondary-residence in his drive-way while in T.D.C.J. uniform after a 12-hour shift at the Maximum-Security Prison, which was allegedly perpetrated by Defendant — Appellee- "Moore ", while utilizing the comp any-truck & uniform of Defendant — 4p/>e//ee- "Blattner-Energy ", as an employee, who was storing a loaded-handgun in the glovebox & brandishing it at her mother 's house. In addition, the secondary-issue is the novel legal-issue in general of whether the district-court abuses its discretion when it arbitrarily & capriciously assesses over $20K in Sanctions-Fines, pre-Answer without any findings of fact whatsoever in its Judgment against a ProSe Victim for even daring to come into the King 's Court for Justice, in order to deter supposedly frivolous-lawsuits against multi-State, multi-million-dollar energy-companies that commit torts in Texas with their ex-con employees.

Beyond that, the legal-issue & standard of review is whether the district-court committed reversible-error by making findings of fact that are Clearly-Erroneous, and/or by Abuse of Discretion interpreting relevant case-law; specifically, whether the district-court erred by ordering a' Dismissal with Prejudice on May 6, 2021 (5-6-21), and/or by ordering Sanctions against ProSe PlaintiffiVictim"Murphy " on May 6, 2021 (5-6-21). Clearly, the district-court abused its discretion when it arbitrarily & capriciously assessed over $20K in Sanctions-Fines, pre-Answer without any findings of fact whatsoever in its Judgment against a ProSe Victim for even daring to come into the King 's Court for Justice, in order to deter supposedly frivolous-lawsuits against multi-State, multi-.million-dollar energy-companies that commit torts in Texas with their ex-con employees. Obviously, the district-court made findings of clearly-erroneous facts when it implicitly found that Plaintiff - Appellant "Murphy 's lawsuit was Frivolous, but also when it explicitly failed to make any correct factual-findings in its Judgment! The district-court abused its discretion by allowing Defendant - Appellees to not Answer for almost a year now & counting, by granting Defendant Appellees ' frivolous Rule-12(b) dismissal-motions, and by allowing Defendant - Appellees to stall Plaintiff Appellant "Murphy 's initiative with frivolous Rule-12(b) dismissal-

Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's claims and imposing sanctions