Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's complaint for failure to comply with heightened pleading standards

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . Pia fr deca 8 ie a ee al ee egactitetionss, hi , _ , th ? t> 2” eprysan lt furnre and adequate (Pahting, Arch Pe orccay onal resources, Pent conduc ve we readin 2 Gngand o tasks lery mayan wad and perform essentrel . 5 a 5c ervcal sG res. h fs wa < services and postage to fet ale ovOCopyiny and amarok feadinas and ta) effects ve. eparve and file neal thet 9 nes cisco Ve resent ancl argue atbdequay leads ag> > SN a ~= ‘ ere tWVas a ~~ ee Figs dion ay the f tse Aw ae he case dhe ols (ged appre Uefe qe peptoest I PR oe preteen mretrens — 6 e \— & ~ a 3 tive defense Het di he Ndied 5.287915 (4) an af maOr, maya tyjal Kucloe invok +H, 5 “defender ts) ? behalf of unserved ofetral es bn fe) ive defense on dens ani he statute, $1915A bo invecbspa tees he el gMtiNty Te Siacall he Cotiplangeee, © TEES JIT. Dees QVUS.C87915le) we fe “(oc ‘ Federal Rule of Covel Procure andlor notice pleading? of anda ; : rq a cle we acts Brel fe ieee ay hae re* her's hteneel p fea ct pest you Fre “3-stwRes” evcluciona, leaded ex ety Fea indigent priko ners jn forma ronarg rele Ane deny miss a nhentontvus Couple de Hetsebafts Snape pleading only” Unsun, tt. i, (. satisfies “x oftee LV. May 3 Unked Noles Coy of App ¥(2), Rec. C4, 2 gent preeenen uy ant seekin of Appeals Reg sre an pref pauper’s fo “terate hts encore Rroresd tg fobs bm nent danger Servo us (aa ve (pe that he fs Sunder murder each ergy es Lied oe dysrlres]” andor motions? appeals > haves > nina notrce of 2 preel7 mandamus 2) for reheanika Pi : pened" init of an of centior ane? in he rsame caste en base? ‘ a ~ ° a ° fo varate iwc viet count dismiss a Kyle Gott) notion that seed, ane We ‘ MP, witkouF consrederetion nda Compfacnt bo aclef facts Lo > | : Le — ple acle urn over> to compl with the cour€S hetohtened pleading. VI, I jb a con (et ‘yforesf and arfteli anda Violatpon of tonal of wrest an pal ely ad Fhe shatufes, 26 u,S.0 8814 4& 455, when juclges who ads udlreated a rnesoneres © Fat to K for Revi ew? of the prisoner's Jrkireie 6 Comp faints of ‘thern tohonts and Coconspire bor appellate | udiaes on bo rule on a motion inthe same ease whieh effected the Jucitial Co repaints against fhe Mmiscreank js lyes aad — Chen fo malian Thee rr so ners nmabro and peneh and refali afen again hem b impl J 20) Kes men Yfor1OKS Wer Dy wae fry volous ab dite dfs Fhe Olerks of Court fa refuse Fe any fa fire suk mrssibns b the prfoner, notte retusn Them ancl efi pose. of. theme | ~ ii