Whether the Eleventh Circuit abused its discretion in refusing to file the petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.) Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit abuse its discretion when refusing to file the . Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 24(a)(5)? 2.) Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit abuse its discretion when reviewing Petitioner's appeal under the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)? 3.) Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit violate domestic and international laws when refusing Petitioner's pleadings and closing the case? 1 STATEMENT ON RULE 20.1 Procedure on a Petition for Extraordinary Writ eee Petitioner, Stephen D. Leonard, pro se, moves this Court to accept this case to aid this Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. I. To Aid This Court’s Appellate J urisdiction This case comes from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals due to the Eleventh Circuit's refusal to file papers, motions, and or Petitions on a timely appeal taken in a Civil Case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 that (1) clearly set forth a claim; and (2) cited imminent fear of serious bodily/physical injuries. See Banker’s Life Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953) (“traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction both at common law and in the federal courts has been to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or ‘compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Asso., 319 U.S. 21, 26 n.6 (1948). Here, the Respondent's are refusing to file papers and refusing to allow a Circuit Judge to Rule upon the objections filed to the actions taken by the Clerk of the Circuit Court under Fed. R. App. P. 27(b), i.e., [“A party adversely affected by the Court’s, or clerk’s action may file a motion to reconsider, vacate, or modify the disposition...”.] i The actions of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals are: (1) an abuse of discretionary power; (2) usurpation of judicial powers by the Clerk, for refusals to file papers objecting to said clerks actions closing the case; and (3) the Court’s refusal to comply with federal law upon review of a Motion to Proceed I.F.P. on Appeal under Rule 24(a)(1) Fed. R. App. P. II. Exceptional Circumstances Warrant the Exercise of this Court’s Discretionary Powers. Exceptional Circumstances are as follows: : (a) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has, sua sponte, ideated a way to deny pro se litigant’s appellate review by allowing a Circuit Court Clerk to review and rule upon appeals and/or Motions for Leave to Proceed Informa Pauperis on Appeal, in clear violation of Legislature’s intent of enacting Article III U.S. Const.; and 28 U.S.C. 1915. See La Bay v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 257 (1957) (“All writs Act is meant to be used only in the exceptional case where there is clear abuse of discretion or ‘usurption of judicial power...”). II. Adequate Relief Cannot be Obtained in Any Other Form or From Any Other Court. The Supreme Court of the United States Rules 10, 17 and 18 provide a provision to review decisions by an inferior court when an inferior court “has so far : departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings” and “has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.” ii : Here, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to review and/or consider the Petitioner’s appeal based upon the Circuit Court Clerk’s opinion that Petitioner is not entitled to an appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1915, regardless of fact that Petitioner cited fear and imminent serious physical injury exemption under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). No other court can or will hear an appeal of a final order from the United States Court of Appeals for