Ercole A. Mirarchi v. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, et al.

Whether a federal district court violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by sua sponte dismissing a pro se civil complaint with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) based on a mischaracterization of the claims as purely criminal and an impermissible private criminal prosecution, while entirely failing to address the civilly reviewable, non-discretionary federal administrative and public reporting mandates set forth under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 and 18 U.S.C. § 2382—duties of public allegiance long recognized to be mandatory and non-prosecutorial under In re Charge to Grand Jury, 2 Curt. 630 (D. Mass. Cir. Ct. 1851)—thereby unlawfully evading a justiciable controversy under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution .

Whether, in direct conflict with this Court’s controlling precedents in Neitzke v. Williams and Erickson v. Pardus, a court of appeals may summarily affirm the pre­ service dismissal of a pro se civil action with prejudice without providing the litigant notice of the pleading deficiencies and a single opportunity to amend the complaint.

Whether a federal district court and a court of appeals act in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction"—exceeding their judicial authority under Stump v. Sparkman and Mireles v. Waco—when they violate Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution by rewriting a pro se civil complaint to falsely characterize it as an impermissible criminal prosecution, thereby summarily dismissing a matter of exceptional national importance that explicitly pleads actionable, civilly reviewable public duties under 18 U.S.C. § 2382, which historically constitutes a distinct civil obligation to the government rather than an exercise of executive prosecutorial discretion (In re Charge to Grand Jury, 2 Curt. 630 (D. Mass, Cir. Ct. 1851)).

Whether a prior federal judgment against one branch of government bars a subsequent civil action against completely different defendants under the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata), when the new complaint alleges independent statutory omissions and dynamic, ongoing evidentiary facts that post-date the original judgment.

Whether lower federal courts may expand the narrow screening mechanics of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to summarily suppress a pro se civil enforcement action of exceptional national importance, where the underlying complaint satisfies the caseor-controversy requirement of Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 by presenting dynamic, ongoing empirical evidence that directly corrects inaccurate public statements made by government declassification officials and the press.