Whether a trial court should render a sua sponte decision to dismiss an informa pauperis pro se litigant first pleaded affidavit to commenced civil action, affording no notice of judicial intent to legal parties and or requisite statutory maintenance to litigants in accord to promulgated rules, would constitute in whole and or in fraction, forbidden intrusion on Procedural Due Process protections

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a trial court should render a sua sponte decision to dismiss an informa pauperis pro se litigant first pleaded affidavit to commenced civil action, affording no notice of judicial intent to legal parties and or requisite statutory maintenance to litigants in accord to promulgated rules, would constitute in whole and or in fraction, forbidden intrusion on Procedural Due Process protections, to the extent when a trial court judge manifest inability to effectively perform imposed requisite ministerial duties, in concerted connection with the . judicial employee nexus willful neglect of ministerial obligation, and or ' any subject judicial officer significant, extensive, and unjustified ; effectible influence associated therewith, should sustain absolute judicial immunity under the law, thereupon the judicial record relied upon : illustrates clear non judicial acts taken without any arguable basis, knowingly without employing defining elements of prerequisite service of process upon all legal parties, to constitute clear adjudicative . jurisdiction over the legal parties and or subject matter thenceforward, pursuant to an invoked appellate examination of adjudicative decree could be deemed invalid on settled Constitutional Grounds, a perceived impairment departure from settled principles and eventful occurrence of a negative impact, intentional contravention to not maintain the reality of equitableness and appearance of judicial fairness which is essential ? ; i . PARTIES TO THE COMMENCED CIVIL ACTION The Appellant / Petitioner, as a natural person, Frizzell Carrell Woodson, a pro se litigant in all matters theretofore, as to date, pursuance to the Article III Constitutional standing and Prudential requirements of a concrete adverseness between the named Defendant herein, arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act § 1346 (b) “FTCA‘) filing in the federal court jurisdictional venue. May the record reflect, pursuance to the FTCA section 1346 (b) six enumerated threshold elements are satisfied for venue jurisdiction and granted waiver of sovereign immunity is thereby as a matter of law, shall constitute for this permissible tort civil action commenced within the set congressional statute of limitation as prescribed in § 2401 (b). The proper Defendant, the United: States of America, advent in ) legal sum under section 1346 (b) (1) of 28 United States Code, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) a waiver of sovereign immunity exists plausible for the government is liable for tortious acts committed by any employee of the Government negligence while acting within the scope of his official office appointment and or federal employment. The Litigation Counsel for the Defendant, The United States of America, shall be at all times, pursuant to 28 U.S.C., § 516-519, and conjoining § 547 be statutorily deemed in Full Legal Representation by the United States Department Justice. . ii