Whether the Supreme Court has clearly established uniformity precedent for pro-se litigants' procedural due process rights under 28 USC § 1915 screening for prepayment of court fees, and if certified indigent civil litigants' first pleading affidavit effects a substantial cause of action, yet the court can sua sponte dismiss the Article III cause as frivolous

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether or not the Supreme Court has clearly established uniformity precedent to all lower courts that all procedure due rights of pro~-se litigants for reason sufficient having filed for application to leave under 28 USC § 1915 screening granted prepayment of courts fees, should be treated the same as paying litigants represented by counsel, and if certified indigent civil litigants first pleading affidavit effects a substantial cause of action, nevertheless, the imposed judicial discretion of a sua sponte dismissal of a Article III cause, can without arguable basis classify the meritious complaint sufficiency. that the to . the extent the court clearly stated it understands the litigants reasons for filing the complaint, can latter assert a predetermined directional fraudulent analysis of the facts and misapplied law, the cause as simply frivolous, contrary to the judicature due course inherent application of orderly concepts afforded, disregarding the purview of ordinary citizenry constitutional rights, privileges, liberties and | immunities. clearly circumvented the proper disposition of the cause, short circuited constitutional jurisprudence, statutory application . omissions, a jettison of case laws or conflict of newly established precedents administration of constitutional justice, rendered without constituted jurisdiction over all parties absence service of process, pursuant to the federal rule, strongly suggest irreparable due process of law deprivation? 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 therehy 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. . ll