Can the frivolous standard of Title 28 U.S. Code section 1915 (e) (2) (B) (i) and (ii) be applied to a subsequent appeal of a decision on a motion for relief from final judgment, order, or proceeding under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 (b) (6)?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED The Petitioner presents two questions: In Neitzke v. Williams 490 U.S. 319 at 325 (1989), quoting from Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), The court stated, “There, we stated that an appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where “[none] of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits, “Id. At 386 U.S. 744. By logical extension, a complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. As the Courts of Appeals have recognized, Section 1915(d)’s term “frivolous,” when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Question one is: Ifa civil action is filed in the district court and the district court finds that the violations as alleged in the party’s complaint meet the standard for a “prima facia case” under the correct legal guidelines; can the frivolous standard of Title 28 U.S. Code section 1915 (e) (2) (B) (i) and (ii) (fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted); be applied to a subsequent appeal of a decision on a motion for relief from final judgment, order, or proceeding in the ~—same.case; filed by the plaintiff under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 (b) (6)? ; Question two is: If the trial court denies a motion for relief from final judgment, order or proceeding filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 (b) (6); without first conducting a hearing to assess the movants evidence and composite circumstance of the case does that automatically constitute Abuse of Discretion? a a a y ii