Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal abused its discretion and deviated from the essential requirements of law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | WHETHER THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF i APPEAL ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DEVIATED | FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WHEN THEY DENIED PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR \ RECONSIDERATION FOR NOT PROVIDING ANY NEW i ARGUMENT EVIDENCE WHEN PLAINTIFF DID ; PROVIDE THE PROPER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO | BE APPLIED AND PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE : NAMED DEFENDANTS DID COMMIT THE VIOLATIONS i NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH WAS IN THE ORDER TO DISMISS THE CASE TO MAKE A FACTUAL SHOWING THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT TIME BARRED AND PROOF OF THE INFRACTION PROVIDED IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH CREATED A DUE PROCESS | VIOLATION UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION XIV. ! AMENDMENT AND VIOLATED FS. 95.11(2) | a WHETHER THE U.S. MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT | (OCALA) ABUSED ITS. DISCRETION AND DEVIATED : FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WHEN THEY DENIED PLAINTIFF A C.0.A., ALLEGING THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS TIME BARRED BY A 4 YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND BASING ITS DECISION | SOLELY ON THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT WHEN THERE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS i AND A REASONABLE JURIST COULD HAVE RULED { DIFFERENTLY RAMSEY V. FUENTES 858 F.3d 1360 (11TH CIR. 2017); U.S. 322, 336 123 S.CT 1029, 154 L.ED.2D | 931 (2003) AND BUCK V. DAVIS, 137 S. CT. 759, 775, 197 L. ED. 2D 1(2017) WHICH CREATES DEVIATION FROM , THE ESSENTIAL. REQUIREMENTS OF LAW VIOLATING | THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DUE PROCESS AFFORDED BY THE XIV AMENDMENT AND FS. 95.11 (1) 1 , | |