Whether any court or tribunal should be allowed to deny or deprive any citizen of basic rights listed in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether any court or tribunal should be allowed to deny or deprive any citizen of basic rights listed in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment even if enacted by congress as in: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) a federal court has authority to dismiss a civil rights case of an IFP pro se litigant sua sponte if the action or appeal is "frivolous or malicious", 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(B)(I); fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(B)(ii), or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Normally, after a defendant is served, a defendant must timely file an answer with affirmative defenses or In IFP cases, the court must serve the defendant. Whether discrimination is a civil rights violation against self represented litigants that file in the United States District Courts that are denied Due Process and Equal Protection when the court dismisses a case before the defendants are served . Thus depriving a citizen of basic access to liberty and justice allowing states to plunder and usurp land and possessions of unfairly disfavored citizens. Whether the fundamental right of a jury trial can legally be denied if a case clearly IS NOT frivolous or without merit even if the lower courts mistakenly label the case as such followed by unwarranted dismissal. Whether pursuant to Rule 4 (c)(3) FRCP.RE service to defendants. When the court does not serve defendants, as required by law, then dismisses the case YEARS later, is grounds to deny a litigant, of any class, meaningful access to the judicial system when seeking damages for civil rights violations. If so that is an opportunity for lower governmental entities to abuse it's citizens without recourse leaving abused citizens without a remedy for their losses. It also removes any meaningful settlement agreement after a governmental entity accepts any wrong doing. Whether after a citizen's land and all possessions are usurped it qualifies as cruel under the 8th “The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States Under tne Fourteenth Amendmeni’s Due Process Ciause,” Ginsburg said. Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the main ruling, but they said the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause was the controlling factor in the case." Whether orders and judgments are void if not affixed with the court seal