Did the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law in Castro v. U.S., 124 S.Ct. 786 (2003), in failing to warn Petitioner, a pro se litigant, that he filed a claim of Newly Discovered Evidence in the wrong court?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . _ Did the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law in Castro v. U.S., 124 S.Ct. 786 (2003), in failing to warn Petitioner, a pro se litigant, that he filed a claim of Newly Discovered Evidence in the wrong court, e.g., The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15? ‘ Furthermore, were the courts required to warn him of the defect in his filing pursuant to L.A.R. . : 107.3, Non-Conforming Motion, Brief or