1. As demonstrated by the rulings of the district court and the circuit court in this action and in a prior related action, does the persistent misapplication of the Twombly plausibility test by Federal judges invariably lead to a violation of this Court's mandate in Erickson v. Pardus regarding the proper judicial treatment of well pleaded factual allegations?

2. Does the repeated failure of the presiding judges herein and in a prior related action to accurately describe the factual predicates and claims contained in the pro se petitioner's complaint constitute an issue that needs to be specifically addressed by this Court?

3. Should the use of memorandum opinions and summary orders by members of the Federal judiciary be sharply curtailed because of its tendency to promote and sanitize irrational reasoning and shoddy jurisprudence, and in furtherance thereof should this Court issue clear guidelines regarding the appropriate employment of these widespread violations of judicial accountability?

Does the persistent misapplication of the Twombly plausibility test by Federal judges invariably lead to a violation of this Court's mandate in Erickson v. Pardus regarding the proper judicial treatment of well pleaded factual allegations?