Usha Jain, et vir v. David Barker, et al.

Can State officers in the trial court and appellate court act directly in conflict with well-established precedent set by the Supreme Court which recommends that pro se litigants be given leniency but in the instant two cases there was an abuse of power against pro se status? Whether this Court should resolve the question of the Federal Law of the Constitution’s prohibition against discrimination based on litigants’ pro se status and color by the state officers who were not following the law. (e.g. Constitution, Florida Statutes etc.). These are issues of great public importance concerning the Constitutional rights of colored people, with far reaching implications to the public where people lose their houses and lifesavings. This court needs to resolve a question of Federal law of fundamental due process. Can judicial officers violate fundamental due process by not holding the hearing per notice, stop a pro se litigant in the middle of the hearing and also prevent a meaningful hearing with a threat of the contempt of the court? This Court should resolve the conflicting decision of the state court of last resort with other state courts of last resort and also conflicting decision of other states regarding mandatory pre suit mediation FS 720.311. This is a question of exceptional importance in order to prevent clogging of the docket with noncompliant suits?