Rochelle Y. Driessen v. Barclays Bank, PLC

WHETHER THE 11™ CIRCUIT ENTERED THE INCORRECT DECISION IN ITS AUGUST 2, 2022, OPINION OF THE COURT IN ITS AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF THE RESPONDENT’S 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT GIVEN THAT THE PETITIONER’S COMPLAINT SURVIVED DISMISSAL UNDER 12(B)(6) WHETHER THE 11th CIRCUIT FAILED TO ISSUE A CORRECTED OPINION OF ITS AUGUST 2, 2022, OPINION OF THE COURT BY DENYING PETITIONER’S PETITIONER FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER’S COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) WAS APPROPRIATE AT THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING GIVEN THAT SERVICE WAS EFFECTED ON THE RESPONDENT WHETHER THE 11™ CIRCUIT’S AUGUST 2 2022, OPINION OF THE COURT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH ROMAN V. JEFFES. 904 F.2d 192 (3d CIR. 1990), OATESS v. SOBOLVITCH. 914 F.2d 428 (3d CIR. 1990), AND NEITZKE V. WILLIAMS. 490 U.S. 319 (1989)