Petitioner's prayed 9 reliefs were National importance of having the US Supreme Court decide or conflict with USSC ruling, or importance of similarly situated over millions of citizens or the first impression is raised at USSC.

Petitioner's prayed 9 reliefs were as Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition or alternative so the questions were part of three test condition requirement of the Writs.

Lower Courts ruled Plaintiff [petitioner] contends, however, that the judgment in the Prior Action was not "on the merits" because it was premised on pleading deficiencies under Rules 8 and 10 and on his failure to comply with Court Orders under Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). While Plaintiff is correct as to the bases of the prior dismissal, he is incorrect as to the preclusive effect of such dismissals.

Lower Courts' decisions about preclusive effect on Meritless (not on merits) order is incorrect as below.

Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims on preclusive grounds despite the dismissal being based on pleading deficiencies and not on the merits