Whether the Appellant court's ruling to uphold the District Court's order which granted defendants' motions to dismiss conflicts with the Supreme Court's prior decision on reasons a court should grant motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted

Questions Presented For Review Rather the Appellant courts ruling to uphold the District Courts order which granted defendants motions to dismiss conflicts with the Supreme courts prior decision on reasons a court should grant motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted ? The United States Southern Texas District Court and U.S. Fifth ; Circuit Court of Appeals has decided the issue of granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a manner that has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of proceeding such as to call for an exercise of judicial supervision , when both courts added then considered false statements which was material to granting defendants motion to dismiss and finding that probable cause was not at issue for a jury to decide? ‘ Rather the Fifth Circuit opinion in favor of the District Court adding three new claimsof defense for the defendants conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and Federal Rules of Evidence 605 ? . Rather the Fifth Circuit ruling in favor of District court order granting motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted where the defendants did not provide a statute that authorized Calhoun’s arrest conflicts with Texas law and the Fifth Circuits prior Texas rulings on legal authority to make warrantless arrest of defendant in Texas? Rather the Circuit Court order affirming judge Bennett’s decision not to recuse himself conflicts with 28 U.S.C. 144 and this courts ruling in ,Sao Paolo State of Federative Republic of Braz. v. Am Tabacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 232-33 (2002)? i