Whether the panel violated plaintiff's right to due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . 1. Whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) . plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, : (Parker, Chin & Livingston, JJ.), violated plaintiff's right to Due . : Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to be : meaningfully heard before the rendering of its decision? . 2. Whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) ; : plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, . (Parker, Chin & Livingston, JJ.), violated plaintiff's right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. : , Constitution by providing no rationales for all five of its five : . ‘ motion denials? : | 3. Whether 28 U.S.C. §1915, entitled “Proceedings in forma : : im pauperis," only applies to appeals permitted to be filed in forma pauperis or does it extend to appeals in which the appellant ; / ; requested permission to file his appeal in forma pauperis but in : . which the U.S. district court and the circuit court panel denied that permission? , 4. Whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) : , plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Parker, Chin & Livingston, JJ.) erred in contravening unreversed U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (7-0) that determined that Due Process of Law ; requires a court considering dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. , §1915(e) to provide notice and an oral hearing to the plaintiff ; before taking the drastic action of case dismissal? 5. Whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) . plaintiffs appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Parker, Chin & Livingston, JJ.) violated plaintiff's right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. ; Constitution by barring petitioner to file an appeal by right with prepayment of the filing fee after determining that the petitioner | was not eligible to file his appeal by right in forma pauperis? . 6. Whether Due*Process of Law as guaranteed. by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a case similar to one in which the U.S. Supreme Court identified it as "quasi-criminal" . . justifies appointment of pro bono counsw!? | 7. Given that the only evidence entered into the case are plaintiff's : multitudinous affidavits and defendants’ solitary affidavit of Town : . of Bethlehem police officer Craig Sleurs in support of defendant Craig Sleurs' motion for summary judgment that does not : contradict the material points of plaintiff's affidavits, whether the ‘ panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Parker, ; Chin & Livingston, JJ.) violated plaintiff's right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | by determining there is no arguable basis in fact for plaintiff's : claims, i.e. can the appellate panel infer plaintiff perjury without an evidential basis supporting the panel's conclusion? a . 8. Given that the U.S. district court determined that plaintiff's case had both an arguable basis in law and in fact in at least one of : plaintiff's claims, whether the panel that dismissed pursuant to 28 : : U.S.C. §1915(e) plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (Parker, Chin & Livingston, JJ.) violated plaintiff's ) right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment : to the U.S. Constitution by refusing to comply with F.R.A.P., . : especially the briefing and oral arguments requirements on the ; , merits, for all appeals by right not permitted to be filed informa pauperis in order to consider reversal of a U.S. district court's , determination, i.e. does the appellate panel need to comply with its ‘ ; , mandatory responsibilities pursuant to the F.R.A.P. including briefing and oral arg