Did the lower courts violate Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights and Tenth Amendment rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW i. Procedurally, did the lower courts violate Petitioner's Fifth — Amendment. Due Process rights and Tenth Amendment rights by adhering to procedures, such as summary dismissal, of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995, as amended in 1996, which operates as a guid pro quo congressional enactment protecting all Respondents who have usurped and abdicated Tenth Amendment : sovereign state police powers in the law enforcement/prison jurisdiction contexts, while simultaneously depriving Petitioner of his personal and private Article III right to independent and impartial review by Federal courts without their equitable powers to provide remedy for constitutional violations in the and coopted state prison context? ii. Did the lower courts’ statute of limitations-bar determination . conflict with well-established "discovery" and "continuing violation" rules, did the courts miscontrue the allegations as challenges to judgment of conviction and sentence, did their Heck "favorable termination" determination conflict with Heck itself, and in light of the underlying claims and allegations asserting ‘racially-tainted, egregious, malicious, wanton and intentional procedural violations of the Tenth Amendment and various other Amendments, federalism, and anticommandeering principles, -. should this Court reconsider and overturn Heck based on the federal political debates, policies, legislation, and admissions of today that the Federal 1994 crime bill was wrong, and Petitioner would add as alleged below, violative of the Tenth Amendment? iii. Did the lower court depart from accepted and usual judicial proceedings determining that Petitioner's denial of bail claim failed to state a claim, when “assuming” that Respodents argued for denial of bail, and hence, they were protected by prosecutorial immunity, when Petitioner plainly alleged that bail ‘for bailable offenses on a sua sponte basis by a district or magistrate justice under the arbitrary pretense that the City's Department of Human Services wanted to "talk to" Petitioner, but never "talked to" Petitioner, and Petitioner remained detained for over four years under arbitrary pretenses of being in need of mental heaith treatment? ive Did the lower court's holding that lawful, permanent state resident Petitioner did not state a plausible claim when challenging the ledging of an immigration detainer conflict with this Court's settled law, and/or should this Court settle an important federal question of whether or not the Constitution's Tenth Amendment and this Court's Tenth Amendment jurisprudence protect lawful, permanent state residents who have been alleged, charged, and/or convicted of committing purely local intrastate crimes from deportation by Federal Respondent, particularly when such action is premised on guid pro quo financial incentives? i ;