I. Did Plaintiff's July 12, 2029 "Motion To Reinstate Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Rule 10(b)(1), (2), and (d)" with Affidavit Sufficiently Show That He is in Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury Enough to Overcome the PLRA's Three Strikes Bar?

II. Did Plaintiff's July 12, 2029 "Motion To Reinstate Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Rule 10(b)(1) and (d)" with Affidavit Meet Threshold Requirement of Rule 10(d)?

III. Pursuant to Criteria Established by This Court in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 888 (2008) Was it Error for The District Court to Deny Plaintiff's September 20, 2029 "Motion For Preliminary Injunction" or Alternatively Motion For Temporary Restraining Order?

IV. Is It A Violation of the Federal Constitution's Prohibition on Cruel And Unusual Punishment Not To Issue An Injunction When Plaintiff-Prisoner Tore His Meniscus Ten Years Ago And Still Haven't Seen An Orthopedic Doctor?

V. Is The U.S. Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit's Holding on Affording Jurisdiction To Grant Mandamus Relief Against State Officials In Burley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) and In Re Dove, 105 F.3d App 156 (2016) (Unpublished), Contrary To This Court's Holding In Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219, 107 S.Ct. 2802 (1987)?

VI. Does Article VI of the United States Constitution (aka The Supremacy Clause) Provides A Federal Judge With The Authority To Issue A Writ of Mandamus Against A State Official?

VII. Did Congress Intend for The PLRA To Be Used in Cases Where A Prisoner Was Only Seeking An Injunction And Not Monetary Damages?

VIII. Does The PLRA Violate A State Prisoner's Federal Constitutional Right To Petition The Federal Government For A Redress of Grievances Against A State Official?

Whether a prisoner's motion meets the PLRA's threshold requirements for overcoming the three-strikes bar and seeking injunctive relief when alleging imminent danger of serious physical injury