Did the District Court abuse discretion in denying appeal of counsel but found several arguable claims under pre-RICO UTPA?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; Ie DID The Districk Court Abuse discrevon ‘in pewia\ Appaiwt oF Counde) But ound Several acguadle Claims Under Pre RL UTPA, ? 2. Based on the Allegations in Civil Achow No. 1445 ~cv164 ExrbitG)s C AWD E ;Cowd the Court see Presumption of intent to the Respondent Gluir’s Caprtes butacy NUglig ence mis sintemerd of the Petition er Fowk)ia's mail see] Exhibit: A-Grievance Response ? 3. Ts thee grounds For Reasenapleness inFerme oF Reasonable Doubt TAY The PehHever's ma) was ever mail out -Pupsuant established Td.O5, Pnpiling Proceducal nue process Y. In eye Allen Vi Tibco, 8 gw 3d Gf), TH Ape Ash ity). yere 2002 The Grievance. tri buval Aas Authority fo take Some res pensive Arba, en why was No Authoriby Authwived to Correet the diseription of My mail, Prima Facie. oF intttionAd Neg) iseutly eprivprhon of Freedom of Speech, om Spiracy peprived OF the exclusive Administrative rerredy to Petitioner for Claim for yelief ? 5. Tq ww: Bell MMNanhe corp V5. Thumbl¥ Supreme Court Buleing lwvder Celaxed Pleading Stywdards Con clusions of Law Wie GBD © tablished KEL; Fgawts ty cons Why was this Standard Not Used to keeo Vast Court 2 ; 6. In Mt Tones V. Caruso, 569 F.3d 25° (Gtete 2) Voges the Court see even the misaiagal in Fongemen?s Upon Wh First Amindond WSC. by oe, the Arilegq tion Conclusion s Avec ayamst the Respondent Blair ? 1. In Heht of Supreme Coury Judgement in Haines vs. Kerner, Zod Us. 544, bon ini), CA my hard write pro se 74 WEG Sectiow 443 Civil Adiow | be dtsm fssed if it Peppeacs beyond Doub} LE Caw froye No set OF Fads in Support of Yhis wai 2 . | re 2