1. Does a state supreme court's practice of summarily denying discretionary review of Per Curium Affirmance (PCA), involving a Statute of Limitation defense, where the refusal to apply State Statute is challenged in violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment operate to deny a litigant property without due process of law?

2. Does a state's discretionary review system, which lacks transparency and consistently denies review to "pro Se" litigants raising federal questions concerning a lower court's disregard for state statute, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying such litigants meaningful access to the courts?

3. Does a state Supreme Court discretionary review process, applied arbitrarily or inconsistently to the detriment of litigants raising federal claims, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Whether a state supreme court's summary denial of discretionary review of a Per Curium Affirmance (PCA) involving a Statute of Limitation defense violates due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment