(1) Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in denying the motion of this poverty-stricken Petitioner for extension of time to pay the filing fee, denied him the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding where his federal rights and his liberty was at stake?

(1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that Petitioner's claim was inextricably intertwined with the state court's decision; and

(2) Whether Petitioner's suit would not have been dismissed under inextricably intertwined framing, and would have ultimately succeeded if headed in another forum within the jurisdictions of the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 11th circuits?

(1) Whether the district court's failure to account for Petitioner's reliance on this Court's precedents was an abuse of discretion; and

(2) Whether the district court's failure to explain why Petitioner's claims did not pass the Wilkinson's or Skinner's test unjustly prejudice his substantial rights to the point of denying him a fair review of his complaint?

(1) Whether the district court clearly erred in concluding that Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Petitioner's suit; and

(2) Whether the district court erred in dismissing the suit, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case?

(1) Whether this Court's holding in Feldman, Exxon, Wilkinson, Skinner, or Reed leaves any room for the view that since Petitioner challenged the legality of the TCCA's 'standing order', and asked for injuctive relief, a federal court is authorized to construe his § 1983 cause of action as a reqeust for mandamus relief; and

(2) Whet

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in denying a poverty-stricken Petitioner's motion for extension of time to pay the filing fee, thereby denying meaningful judicial proceeding participation