Did the Fifth Circuit err in affirming a district court's conclusion that service of process by Certified Mail is insufficient under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Fifth Circuit err in affirming a district | court’s conclusion that service of process by Certified Mail — a summons with a copy of the complaint as delivered by an employee or agent of the United States Postal Service — is insufficient under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit err in affirming a district court’s conclusion that claims arising out of : intentional inflictions of emotional distress, ; invasions of privacy, forced involvement, thefts, appropriations, and conversions comprising civil statutory causes of action, civil tort causes of action, civil liability and negligence causes of action, and deprivations of rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of Texas were too “patently frivolous” for a federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction? ; ii . |: . . 1 iii : PARTIES TO THE PETITION Petitioner in this Court, plaintiff-appellant William Henry Starrett, Jr., was Plaintiff in the district court and an appellant before the Fifth Circuit. Below, he will be referred to as “STARRETT” or “Plaintiff.” Respondents, having appearance made in the district court and Fifth Circuit proceedings, are: Defendants United States Department of Defense and United States Department of Energy with their units including Defendants United States Army, United States Army Special Operations Command, United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, United States Army Reserve Command, United States Special Operations Command, National __ Nuclear Security Administration, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency with these nine collectively referred to as “Federal Defendants.” Defendant Texas Military Department may be referred to as “TXMIL.” Lockheed Martin Corporation may be referred to as “Lockheed Martin.” Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. as “LLNL,” and Sandia Corporation as “SANDIA.” iv ; _ Defendant named in the district court and not having an appearance made in the district court proceedings or in the Fifth Circuit, Microsoft Corporation, may be referred to as “MICROSOFT.” The thirteen Defendant parties having appearance made in the district court and Fifth Circuit proceedings may collectively be referred to as “Defendants” where none specified.