Whether the Due Process Clause requires an opportunity for a post-deprivation hearing for a property right/interest § 1983 claim

questions presented are: 1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require that prior to the final termination of a property right/interest § 1983 claim, the property Owner had a constitutional right to be afforded an opportunity for a post-deprivation hearing for an adequate remedy including a statement of reasons to satisfy constitutional due process. 2. Whether it is a per se unreasonable seizure and unlawful taking of property pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to continue to stop/seize then taking an individual's “Not for-hire” property without a warrant, after the issue for this use has been affirmed with several state court acquittals on this particular issue, being in compliance with state laws which eliminates the : reasonable expectation that there is either probable cause to believe or reasonable suspicion that the “Not for-hire” property is being used contrary to the laws governing the operation of motor vehicles, merely for seeing the “Not for-hire” tag displayed in lieu of the state issued tag. 3. Whether a government action is found to be impermissible and unconstitutional in violation of the . First and Fourteenth Amendments because the decision(s) or act(s) is so arbitrary as to violate procedural due process, by applying other strict standards in addition to poverty guidelines for the request to Appeal in forma pauperis and denying the Redress of Grievances on a fundamental : Liberty and Property rights/interests § 1983 claim while refusing to allow a hearing. ; Petition for Writ of Certiorari: I ;