1) Whether Pro se Plaintiff has a lawful statutory right pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 41 to withdraw "without prejudice" an earlier filed Section 1983 Remedy Complaint for Injunctive Relief (1:12cv178-HSO(S.D. Miss.)), while Pro se Plaintiff litigated an unrelated Civil RICO Conspiracy Complaint (1:13cv314-HSO(S.D. Miss.)), then re-file the Section 1983 Remedy Complaint for Injunctive Relief (1:19cv319-HSO(S.D. Miss.)) at this instant later date?

2) A res nova question whether Health Insurance Portability Privacy Act ("HIPPA") applies when the patients, i.e., Federal Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") Task Force Agent ("TFA") Craig Shows and John Bordages Jr, have already waived all expectation of privacy pursuant to the "third-party doctrine" when [they] testified in open court during Plaintiffs criminal trial, concerning the condition of [their] alleged injuries?

3) Whether Pro se Plaintiff has a due process right to have the district court rule on all the merits of the Claim, i.e.v whether Pro se Plaintiff has met the four (4) prong test required to obtain the Section 1983 Remedy Injunctive Relief herein sought, i.e., release of the "evidence" medical records of Craig Shows and John Bordages Jr, being held by these third-party Defendants GPCH-GP, Inc. etal.?

4) Whether the district court abused its discretion when it failed to hold Pro se Plaintiff to the lesser stringent standard as established by this Court in Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)(PER CURIAM), by misrepresenting the facts and laws pertaining to the Claims the district court failed to rule on in violation of Pro se Plaintiffs due process right to be heard?

5) Whether Pro se Plaintiff has a Due Process Right to review the conclusive medical records evidence due to the fact that Pro se Plaintiff was charged by the two patients, Craig Shows and John Bordages Jr, and convicted of "[u]sed a dangerous weapon which inflicted bodily injury on ..." Shows and Bordages, who were appointed Case Agents to investigate and prosecute post alleged injuries sustained?

6) Whether the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion, and the process, when it failed to deny Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as MOOT, after Pro se Plaintiff had already paid the entire $505.00 Appeal Fee, before the CoufJ could rule on the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, counting a strike against Pro se Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. 1915?

whether-pro-se-plaintiff-has-right-to-withdraw-complaint-without-prejudice