Whether the appeal was wrongfully dismissed after the pro se litigant took measurable acts to protect the merits of his appeal after it was erroneously dismissed as being untimely and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel was misapplied even though there were clear irregularities of foreclosure proceedings in violation of due process and public policy?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Rochell Talley, the Petitioner, requests this Petition for Writ of Certiorari be granted given the salient issues of a pro se litigant complying with the rules of procedure, the misnomer of a pleading, the harsh dismissal of an appea! when the underlying action involve constitutional issues of notice and the viability of claims . by alleged lenders when no notice was provided as to interest in the property. The Petitioner’s misnomer of a pleading resulted in the dismissal of his appeal as being time-barred, when in fact, he had filed an enlargement of time several days earlier. The lower courts had the — discretion to grant the time to comply with the rules of appellate procedure and rename his pleading, however, his appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner attempted to comply with the rules of appellate procedure and dismissal of the appeal was harsh. Further, the District Court should not have ; dismissed the complaint based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Given the ever-changing mortgage : holders, federal statutes also require that notice be tendered to property owners. Statutes and the constitution are firm as to notice mandates. These statutes must be strictly construed given the impact upon public policy and protecting owners of properties from being harassed by lenders who do not have a viable interest in real property. Pro-se parties must be afforded the same protections mandated by the rules and the constitution. I. WHETHER THE APPEAL WAS WRONGFULLY DISMISSED AFTER THE PRO SE LITIGANT TOOK . MEASURABLE ACTS TO PROTECT u THE MERITS OF HIS APPEAL AFTER IT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED AS BEING UNTIMELY AND THAT THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOOPEL WAS MISAPPLIED EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE CLEAR IRREGULATIES OF FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND PUBLIC POLICY?