Whether a pro se plaintiff's pleading of plausible state law claims, including an allegation that would stop a pending foreclosure, is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) contrary to established case law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a pro se Plaintiffs pleading of plausible state law claims, including an allegation that, if true, would stop a pending foreclosure of his home, is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), when the dismissal is contrary to this Court’s clearly established case law for reviewing a motion to dismiss? 2. Whether District Courts should consider a pro se party’s request to remand a case to state court when the issue is timely presented in a status conference report filed within 30 days of removal? 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s sua sponte finding that an issue was forfeited on appeal because the pro se Plaintiff did not file a written objection is contrary to Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), as there was no notice of any objection requirement or the consequences, no written statement of decision, the District Judge was aware of the objection, and there was a developed record of a Magistrate Judge’s biased and improper revoking of a Settlement Conference because the Plaintiff objected to giving his private financial information to opposing parties, but was willing to provide it to the judge?