William Louis Armstrong v. Boyland Auto BGMC LLC, et al.

2 SCOTUS rule 14 (a)-Questions for review-pp2-9

1. I filed with an IFP motion; the court found me indigent (including for counsel recruitment). I moved for service under FRCP 4(c)(3), but the district court refused despite granting IFP status, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rule 4(c)(3) says the court “must” order service for IFP plaintiffs (contrasting with “may” for others). Does “must so order” in FRCP 4(c)(3) require a district court to order service upon request by a plaintiff allowed to proceed in forma pauperis?

2. The district court’s first order applied outdated Rule 23 text, deferred screening, and decided adequacy against me via a per se rule against pro se adequacy. What followed was months of inquisition-like proceedings that departed from principles of party presentation, where I was denied tools routinely available to non-indigents (including without limitation access to discovery). Does the law require that indigent persons not be legally disabled by the courts compared with non-indigents for litigating rule 23 issues or other questions, in cases where their positions would survive screening? Is imposing wealth based disparate access to discovery procedure error?