Whether dismissal based on failure to meet a pre-trial conference is a drastic action, and where court access is barred prior to the dismissal that the court failed to move forth on the case for over two years, where a motion is filed pursuant to Fl. R.C.P. Rule 1.440 'notice that the action is at issue', and ready for trial

QUESTIONS-PRESENTED . 1. Whether dismissal base on fail to meet a pre-trial conference is a drastic action, , and where court access is barred prior to the dismissal that the court fail to move forth on case, over two years, where motion is file pursuant Fl. R.C.P. Rule 1.440'notice that the action is at issue’, and ready for trial. Whether the offer of “Without Prejudice" is sufficient protocol of any Court "which the Rule "without prejudice" in a judgment, order, or decree, dismissing case, grants opportunity to re-file. However, that the right to redress is obstructed, is this an abuse of discretion, then to say "without prejudice" that the appellant is free to litigate, which this case is absent of any decision on the merits. Although, there is challenge of the Constitutional requirements such as "Right to Redress", US Const. Amend. (1) (1791). Due Process of Law, US Const. Amend. (14). And Equal Protection of the Law. Whether, the tribunal’s lack of concern for Procedural, and Substantive Rights, warrant reversal, that Procedurally, the tribunal delay the case in the court for years, and later decide that "Mandatory" status conference is a proper dismiss. Substantially, how the facts/merits of the case are mis-handle that the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and arguments are not address when case dismiss. Whether, the bar of access to the court prior to dismissal, and lack of an opportunity to offer a contrary presentation of evidence in the "Mandatory" Pre-trial conference warrant dismissal, of the complaint, and the action. Whether, the tribunal’s failure to establish deliberate or insubordinate regard for the courts authority, on the part of the plaintiff, is ground for reversal. Whether, order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss after “Pre-Trial” conference, is also to serve as an order "dismissing the action" for failure to appear. Whether, dismissal of Complaint is warranted for 'fail to appear’ where the party (Plaintiff), while in the tribunal state reason for confusion is between dates, and an unforeseen circumstance. Whether, the request for “Leave to Amend Complaint”, inclusive of unforeseen circumstance, which sheriff, appear at residence on a ‘fraudulent foreclosure’ “without notice”, and the (plaintiff), is unknowingly remove from 20yr tenure of residential property, this cause the " fail to appear" do this warrant dismissal. Whether, the fact the trial court "did -not find" willful disobedience of a court order, or deliberate and contumacious disregard of the courts authority, or any willful abuse of the processes of the court, warrant dismissal. Whether, the actions of the “Fifth District” is abuse of discretion, that court access is remove which the court taken fees which appellant initial claim indigent and is denied. Though immediately after fee payed, the Fifth District, dismiss and declare "without jurisdiction”. This action remove Constitutional guarantee of the right of access to the court, and redress at the next level of review, the "Florida Supreme Ct” that the order is without an "elaborated opinion.”