Donnahue George v. William Snyder, et al.

Are Pro se litigants entitled to the same interpretation and protections of the law when the opposing party is a government agency as litigants represented by legal counsel.

Whether the District Court erred by dismissing Plaintiff- Appellant Donnahue George case for failure to state a claim when defendants were properly served, and Plaintiff- Appellant Donnahue George was very specific in his Amended complaint about Defendants unconstitutional actions. The Defendants entered Plaintiff Donnahue George premises illegally under the color of law and stole his personal property, thereby denying him his constitutional rights to do process and violating his constitutional rights against unjust seizure of his property.

Whether the District Court erred by striking the Defendants separate motions to dismiss and ordering that they file a joint motion to dismiss, unless they had conflicting interests, and issuing orders before plaintiff has time to respond, which gives the impression that the District court is acting like co-counsel for the defense and becoming the architect of the defendants defense strategy and denying Plaintiff Donnahue George Constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial.

Did the Court of Appeals err by affirming the the lower courts decision to set aside the Clerks entry of default when the defendants were properly served . The defaulting party did not have a meritorious defense, The Default was willful and culpable and setting it aside prejudiced the plaintiff-Appellant. The Defendants alleged they were not served but presented no evidence to support that allegation but Plaintiff_Appellant provided proof of Service.