What is the proper treatment of pro se litigants in the federal court system to ensure their constitutional and judicially-recognized rights to a fair and meaningful hearing?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) As a first, pro se litigants have the Constitutional right to represent themselves in which this notion has its origins which stem from the Judiciary Act of 1789. Kindled on the implied language of the 6th and 7th Amendment-again addressed by the High Court, espouses pro se litigants be provided with a fair and “meaningful” hearing. This again with being afforded a degree of latitude in pursuing claims as the preeminent holding extols. Haines v. Kerner, 404, US 519, 522 (1972. As the query here goes this as to what sort of reception do pro se litigants —particularly plaintiffs, presently receive in the federal system that’d be on level with Constitutional or judicially divined standards. Also in this day and time is the treatment of this group as far as sustainability for America’s reputation as being the foremost legal forum in the worldwhen again some unrepresented litigants endure scathing trials in their attempts to seek to advance their claims in good faith. As the kernel question of this petition-which is sans any precise /itigation point, Petitioner as archetype of herein complained-on situation by the prismatic refraction of his past experiences -asks under this heading What might this Court do in terms of implementing administrative reforms throughout the federal system (to trickle down to state level) in order to cope with a practical matter that sees proficiently pleading pro se litigants — paid and IFP cases, being marginalized and abused by court personnel and judges in their bids to advance fustical causestagging the judiciary in being in simpatico with Congress in Prisoner Litigation Reform Act -or PLRA, of 1996 42 U.S.C § 1997 (e) initiative; meant chiefly to curb frivolous pro se litigation by the incarcerated and reshape statutes of limitations, while at the same time-with less emphasis, there be provided the few of proficiently pleaders of the unrepresented with unbiased hearings to advance their claims or in defense thereof in counterclaim, without hindrance that'd again be vetted by some neutral body? Also, in view of ramped up expulsions and new immigration controls for non-citizens in the Post 9/11 ageWould the Panel kindly define court accessibility procedures for inadmissible alien pro se \itigants in state suits pursuing liberty or property interests in the US -but with the party’s body being outside of these borders? Again could lower court’s Order be valid where a portion of the EDNY scanned complaint was not fully availed for the record here as ECF No. 1 has pages 38-83 out of order or missing? 2) Petitioner duly integrated Declaratory and Injunctive (Prospective) Relief mechanisms into his complaint onto entity Respondents directly in name, to form on-itsface Unconstitutional “state action” claim that cascading in key precedents. United States v. Raines 362 U.S. 17 (1960), Flagg Brothers v. Brooks468 U.S. 149 (1978), and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians 476 US 747(1986). Clearly the Unconstitutional policy that allows for the “discard[ing]’on capricious whim or in the furtherance of an artifice of pleadings of Constitutionally protected litigants where ii Petitioner maintains that such infringed upon his 5" and 14" Amendment rights. A prefacing query comes as-How is a “state action” properly stated to district court by a ; plaintiff to the given standard. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly et al, 550 US 544 127 (2007)? Incorporating still the “plausibility” standard and in Asheroft v. Iqbal 556 US 662 (2009)-When is the conciseness standard in notice pleading. met Petitioner under FRCP Rule 9(c) when Petitioner pleaded in “particularity” where detail is necessary to plead fraud in the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt U.8.C.§ 1642 and Alien Tort Claim Act (ATCA)-28 U.S.C. § 1350 schemes? In a nutshell under this rubric-Should the Circuit Court have dismissed the appeal where it offered absolutely nil on such matter-as previously District Court impliedly denied that Peti