Lorenzo Dominic Richardson v. Gerald Baker, et al.

Whether a federal district court may lawfully dismiss a (valid and factual) pro se, civil rights complaint and jury trial demand (prematurely) at the pleading stage- in which specifically states & identifies constitutional violationssufficient to satisfy the federal notice-pleading standard, before service of process and before any defendant had appeared, rebutted, or filed any official, responsive pleading (at all) to the case Hence, does that dismissal deprive the Petitioner of the adversarial (adjudication, judiciary) process contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and of meaningful appellate review, in conjunction with the opportunity to cure any alleged petition discrepancies ( Rule 8 and Rule 15(a).

Whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c), as interpreted by this Court in Smith v. Barry, requires federal courts to liberally construe timely docketed, pro se, post­ judgment filings as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal- and when the petition objectively & abundantly manifested an evident intent to obtain appellate review ...

Whether a court of appeals may lawfully dismiss an appeal for proposed lack of jurisdiction without recognizing timely coordinated, post-judgment filings as satisfying the functional requirements of Rule 3(c), and where those filings provided notice of the challenged judgment and clearly sought judicial review of the denial

Whether a district court's dismissal of a pro se complaint & subsequent injunction order-without permitting amendment (and de novo review)- after the submission of a proposed amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and this Court's precedents favoring, liberal amendment and construction of pro se pleadings

Whether this Court should exercise its supervisory (1% “acceptance”) authority under Rule 10 to clarify the uniform application of these recurring federal procedural principles governing appellate jurisdiction, amendment of pleadings, and meaningful access to appellate review for self-represented, in forma pauperis litigants