Whether a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is presumed to be with prejudice

QUESTION PRESENTED (1) The courts have held that, unless otherwise specified, a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is presumed to be both a Judgment on the merits and to be rendered with prejudice, is this true or false? (2) A district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b}(6) is, of course with prejudice unless it specifically orders dismissal without prejudice, is this true or false? [I]n the absence of a clear statement to the contrary, a dismissal pursuant to Fed Rule Civ. P. 12 (b)(6) is presumed to be with prejudice. (3) A dismissal of a civil action with prejudice in civil lower court and not . adjudicated, based on res judicata, can same issues be raised in higher court? (4) If the lower court decision was based on failure to state a claim, can Petitioner’s claim of inadequate representation, pursuant to Fed Rule Civ. P. 12(b}(6) be considered in the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for judgment on pleadings? (5) Petitioner referred to instances in his District Court Complaint, that his attorney “messed up” his civil (lower court) case which this case was dismissed with prejudice by the attorney of record. This reference was made on numerous documents that was submitted with the Petitioner’s TT PP District Court complaint. Should the Court have addressed this issue that | the Pro Se Petitioner was trying to infer in his complaint (negligence by attorney who represented him in civil lower court case) Do the Pro Se Litigant have right to “Due Process” of law based on actions of legal counsel and since the case was not adjudicated in lower court, does res judicata apply in the district court case? OPINION BELOW Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. . For cases from Federal Courts: The Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals appears at