Whether the Tenth Circuit erred in creating a special pro se pleading standard for cognitively-disabled litigants

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner James P. Tatten was admitted to the Bar of this Court on August 27, 1999. On November 8, 2008, Tatten was the victim of a violent assault that caused severe, traumatic-brain injury. He is disabled and lives with significant cognitive impairments and limitations. Tatten is pro se. This case results from the conduct of state and non-state actors seeking to collect a time-barred debt. The questions presented are: 1. Whether this Court’s decision in Haines v. Kerner permits a United States Court of Appeals to create a special and unique pro se pleading standard for litigants. 2. Whether the court erred in barring 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 3. Whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. 4. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits non-judicial foreclosure to authorize a state actor to sell and vest title in real property secured by a deed of trust extinguished by operation of state law.