In Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018),
this Court held that states may not dismiss 28 U.S.C. §
1332 claims denied supplemental jurisdiction and refiled
in state court without applying the tolling provision under
28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) that requires the statutes of limitations
for such claims to be paused "both while the claim is
pending in federal court and for 30 days post-dismissal. "
Id. at 596. Despite that ruling, two Florida state courts
bypassed Artis to dismiss the refiled claims with prejudice.

Further, this Court is asked to examine the erosion
and loss of constitutional rights for self-represented civil
litigants in Florida. Specifically, to assess the excessive use
of per curiam affirmances by state appellate courts, along
with state courts' failure to protect pro se litigants' due
process rights by allowing opposing counsel to violate
ethical rules and the rules of civil procedure.

The questions presented concern the Supremacy
Clause, a federal question dividing the courts, and
constitutional due process protection, as follows:

Question I: Does a Florida court 's failure to apply 28
U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolling to dismissed 28 U.S.C. § 1332
claims refiled as state court claims —in conflict with this
Court's decision in Artis v. District of Columbia —
constitute reversible error?

Question II: Does Florida 's issuing an excessive number
of per curiam affirmance ("PCA ") opinions, which act as a
barrier preventing appeals to the state supreme court,
ensnare and terminate valid claims, and should this
burden shift of constitutional appeals directly to the U.S.
Supreme Court be reformed to ensure due process?

Question III: Does the inherent obstacle faced by
indigent non-attorney pro se civil litigants, due to lack of
experience and group bias, become insurmountable when
courts fail to address opposing attorney violations of the
Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the Rules of Appellate Procedure?

Does a Florida court's failure to apply 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolling to dismissed claims, and the excessive use of per curiam affirmances, constitute a violation of due process rights for pro se litigants?