Were the Second Circuit's decisions, approving the District Court's application of the summary judgment standard to all of the pro se and uneducated Petitioner's claims, when the District Court said it would apply it solely as to Respondents' statute of limitation defense, and retain the motion to dismiss standard as to the balance of Petitioner's claims, so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Were the Second Circuit’s decisions, approving the District Court’s application of the summary judgment standard to all of the pro se and uneducated Petitioner’s claims, when the District Court said it would apply it solely as to Respondents’ statute of limitation defense, and retain the motion to dismiss standard as to the balance of Petitioner’s claims, so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power? 2. Were the Second Circuit’s decisions, approving the District Court’s refusal to acknowledge that the pro se and uneducated Petitioner had pled a breach of contract claim, so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power? 3. Were the Second Circuit’s decisions, approving the District Court’s refusal to apply equitable tolling to Petitioner’s claims, where the pro se and uneducated Petitioner acted with reasonably diligence in the face of extraordinary circumstances, so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power?