Usha Soujanya Karri v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al.

Is it lawful when the Trial Court cites ‘absten­ tion grounds’ and refuses to order for investigation as per the ‘Rule of Law’, as Chicago Police were bribed to cover up several felony criminal cases and, state-court judges and lawyers were bribed to conspire with the offender for further coverup of the crime by trying to get the victim murdered by violating the civil rights under color of law, and the bribery involved millions of dollars using illegal money from India?

Is it lawful for the Trial Court to dismiss the Complaint with sufficient facts for a series of frauds, bribery, murder conspiracies, and murder-for-hire crimes against the crime victim, by citing ‘violation of F.R.C.P. Rule 8(a)(2) requiring only a short statement’, in conflict with the US Supreme Court’s decisions in BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and with 10 other Circuit Courts’ decisions and, also with the 7th Circuit Court’s own prior decision in Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 971 (7th Cir. 2009)?

As per the ‘Rule of Law’, can the Court order the Chicago Police Chief to investigate the several fel­ ony criminal cases covered up by Chicago Police result­ ing in further crime against the victim by violations of civil rights under color of law, and order the US Attor­ ney General to investigate the bribery and violations of civil rights under color of law through murder con­ spiracies and murder-for-hire crimes against the crime victim, as covered up by federal prosecutors from US Attorney’s Office in Chicago?