Does a prisoner's §1983 civil matter require a remand if a District Court wrongly equate the standard for frivolousness of a complaint under §1915(d) with the standard for failure to state a claim under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) ‘Does a prisoner's §1983 civil matter require a remand if a District Court wrongly : equate the standard for frivolousness of a complaint under §1915(d) with the: standard for failure to state a claim under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ? 2) Violate a prisoner's Due Process by wrongly dismissing a valid §1983 complaint ? ; 3) Can Rule 12(b)(6) be based upon countenance dismissals on a Judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations ? 4) Did the District Court cinflate these standards in violation of prisoner's Due Process rights under PLRA, by the denial of an indigent Plaintiff of the practical protection of Rule 12(b)(6), Notice of a Pending Motion to Dismiss,.and an opportunity to amend the complaint before the Motion was ruled, sua sponte, under: §1915(d) ? . 6) Does a civil matter, which a ruling under Appeal §1662 effects of decision on other grounds, by invoking Neitzke v. Williams, [28 U.S.C. §1915(d)), by the District Court violate Due Process by its' failure to abide prevailing laws and legal standards, under F.R.Civ.P. Rule. 59(e) and 60(b), Motion for Reconsideration, and a Motion to Reopen under a Showing of Mistake, based upon newly-discovered evidence ? 7) Can a District Court, upon official request by Petitioner, under F.R.Evid. §201(c)(2) refuse to take Judicial Notice of provided facts, and, under F.R.Evid. §201(e), also refuse to hold the entitled hearing on the propriety of refusal to accept said evidence as Judicially-Noticed, after a formal request to hold said hearing ? 8) Is it error for a District Judge to ignore the claim of Imminent danger exception, under §1915(g) in dismissal of a three~strike $1983 party ? 9) Is it failure to consider and determine dismissals of a pro Se indigent party under . ; Haines v. Kerner, for standards of proper Motions ? . : IIL . : QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | 10) Did’ the District Court violate PLRA litigant Pro Se status , Petitioner by its' failure to literally construe his Pro Se litigant pleading? ; 11) Did the District Court fail to hold this PLRA Pro Se litigant Petitioner status, by not imposing the less stringent standard of review? 12) Did the District Court violate fundamental Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6), by its' dismissal,as, being under , 28 U.S.C. §1915(d), frivolous? 13) Did the District Court's mistakes, analysed under Rule 60(b) constitute an obvious error of law, prior to the court's ruling? 14) Did the District Court's actions constitute an abuse of discretion? , 15) Did the District Court's failure to review Pro Se litigant's EXHIBITS attached to the Rule 60(b) Motion violate Due Process to an evidentiary hearing? 16) Did the District Court violate the American with Disability Act? . 17) Should the District Court be required to recuse the presiding Judge if he has shown bias in the proceedings? : 18) Should the District Court be held liable for reimbursing Pro Se litigant's financial costs, for causing additional financial crisis? ‘ 19) Did the District Court violate Supreme Court precedents, cases Farmer v. Brennan, and Estelle v. Gamble; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Neitzke v. Williams, Wilson v. Seiter, Hudson v. McMillan, and Grege v. Georgia. ? . i | IIt