Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the court's inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED iYaoe fl ton fuses my Lihag otion under Oroty ick Couck rule E36. UisDebign powers , and Tempoveny aASSignine th sO). a Ondge has power to Cesigiabe a magi Strate Sbge, examplelsete eid? why? , z2.) God Stetes bre reg urs Should be Protec ted by thevide of law whaees fs of esS en CouvSe | AS QO \ask vessovk to rebel bow against FY rane arl © pression ¢ 3.) why does fle S Uprene Court Agee with, tle Plra (4973) .TLat ablow's fi. Legislature to linit rights of people because Tle Incarcerated ? 4.) Feeping TO pind tle Cau does not act af reSearcler/ (nvestagabor ON a Slovenger Luk, ow belwif of a plaiwhYy, ek plarving Court 'S may not ack as a LU gautts lawyer deo. Mruck te powty's teow of Pability fom Covet s Ree Meged , aWuded akc. whos Caet tle Cor ut's obide tus prachce? 5) why Coes He Coumt'© lowe tle inheput Powe to divmiss a case? why Goes a Court dismiss A CeSe Sua S ne + rs t . ) pote Whew The plain tice ei) ‘5 to wre Yo with procedural rules! uy den uvS. Yates GYY F.2d S03 ,S0e CSE, Cont B wey /98)). See Hane VS. Lleyfo, S99 FK Apo X 7 Z, sos CMC 201sICe Hing Fea feu 2 (fis: CoandevsS us. NeAESCO, Sc. SOf “SF, 4S g2. B~< ) oe . 1 SE~-9F CC. CG) BI Tbeo9, He Coed mest /y'he. / ably ConStry pro Se pleshewgs, x bE ov oh . e keroer, Yo¥ Af St OC OE NERS LA 7h Hermes VS. , OCG S20 1/972), pro Se pleahing are NMowefle Jess vegin'red tho Conroe n, Hho,’ pl dings do py | ee Ced ‘stl 363, why f 3) On-o/\ hutle' Ss Hamma soq E App x at 2) Why ave Tle s}ardard’s Gy deberming whet INDIGENT PAPER INDIGENT PAPER . INDIGENT PAPER a Con plaivt iS Subject to dismissal Unde Fed. Ricky. 0. bY Apply's do AUSMISSUL UsBer [FISAG) A). conSequentY, wlan rentersing oeplalats pursue be 19 u. | C pilav if & Fo 18u-S.c. [VIS a, tle Oo , wA'S must ShanDowd © Se: ; “PPM Awd © Sed Buty iy Fell Q eeu, PTE). Set So high namely cub olrenct, be uneducehed Uf haga Ks B) IL pro Se litegawt's are lald to" less Stand ovd\s flow nel pleadings dref Leal by lawyers ws) WON ; i a Can o fe EE La lure to Sate . + ei ¢ s t a claim. it is HKU meCesSory tlat a Comp lain Contain eftlie divect oy i(nPerestial al. “ e@ . Pble 474 WS. 97, 106 (1979). See Roe vs. rare Wo . men Cy, By dete jre., uss 3d 678, 685C1E — Wn. 2e0l), Cat. denied, S37 US, (129 (2002)? GQ) Thus ; a pleinbi@e obligehows to prods Tle , grows or Ws ent Henet Fo velief vequives prove Tran hee Lobsel's and ComeluS ion. a “fore INDIGENT PAPER INDIGENT PAPER ’ INDIGENT PAPER polacc vrecitakien of fee eerertS of a Cause of actor wilt notdo." Bell atlawhe Corp vs, food) Move , ave inset cies > to Shod & voght to v See aslcrot}, Sob US. ah b7F. y rie ; Vewrest allowed to Order when besel tears a re “indisputably retless," or wlen fle olalas ver \y on Botunl aiegabons Flat ove “Clearly base les$-"'ra _ DISrmMSSa\ , becauSe i+ Count S aS [we trathonss , points agers uf legal defense? ' , (\.) unde tulite Collar WitveS ov Capitol oense £ e's Say “7 oveginedt Larges. £F He Pprisow Gdwini Sod ow lide ov ConSealed fle imMevinoti, ow on tee och real feeling £ ebout m7 , Clogs 2rd Degree ruveltr wl nse. What f + could ot ov bed tle legel eduection bo explein a dedente ov “Y ground's ad QU wer a Cepaln loop hole” ov Pmineniade Yerger. why 1S fe goverrived* ¥ flodeld Deleanbel, Steve siS. olak allowed fo fu ws Te hectic on re? INDIGENT PAPER INDIGENT PAPER INDIGENT PAPER | pfirnetk D get eet to wteeh. % be able fo wegp?