The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia—reciting its awareness that the Petitioners
/Plaintiffs were incarcerated and even some in solitary
confinement evidently in retaliation for the filing of
this lawsuit and unable to respond—cut off the appeal
below on summary affirmance. Knowing that the
Plaintiffs were unable to meet deadlines dismissed
the appeal before the Plaintiffs had a chance to file an
Appellant brief, just as the U.S. District Court had also
done in prematurely dismissing the case at the trial
level. The Questions Presented are:

1. Does "good cause" as a basis for reinstatement
of a lawsuit and/or extension of time under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") Rule 4(m) for failure
to serve a Defendant turn on the test "through no fault
of the litigant," such as being incarcerated and/or in
solitary confinement? Is it sufficient to show that the
deviation was "through no fault of the Plaintiff' or
does "good cause" require something more (as suggested
by Defendants/Respondents)?

2. Does "good cause" as a basis for reinstatement
of a lawsuit or extension of time under FRCP Rule 4(m)
to serve a Defendant include considering the absence
of any inconvenience or prejudice to the Defendants?

3. Where all parties and the lower courts agree
that the Complaint and amended complaints actually
included a telephone number, could the District Court
dismiss the case under Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) for failure to
include a telephone number—that was in fact included
—on speculation that someone might not answer the
phone number—although the attorney in fact under a
power of attorney did answer when the Defendants
called the phone number (and Defendants immediately
hung up when he answered the phone number)? That
is must the phone number on a complaint be "his"
phone number owned as the exclusive property of a
Plaintiff rather than "his" phone number where a
Plaintiff can be reached?

4. Where Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) requires a "residential address" but all parties and the lower courts agree
that most of the Plaintiffs resided for years in Federal
prison as inmates—especially those like Edward Jacob
Lang who was arrested early in 2021 and continuously
incarcerated until January 21, 2025—can the District
Court dismiss the case for disclosing that the Plaintiffs
reside in Federal prison? That is, if a Plaintiff has no
residential address (because they are in prison) can his
or her case be dismissed under Local Rule 5.1(c)(1)?

5. Where the initial complaint was filed on January
5, 2024, the District Court dismissed the initial complaint as to all Plaintiffs on April 30, 2024, (day 118),
but on May 20, 2024, ECF Dkt. #15, the Defendant
U.S. Capitol Police recited and conceded having been
previously served with the Complaint in its Memorandum in opposition to re ECF Dkt. # 11 Motion for Relief
from Judgment, did the District Court err in denying
an extension of time to serve the Defendants?

6. Can the District Court under Local Rule 5.1(c)(1)
dismiss the case for providing a post office box address
with the U.S. Postal Service [established under the
U

Whether good cause for lawsuit reinstatement under FRCP Rule 4(m) turns on incarceration status and lack of defendant prejudice