Whether the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 3-strike rule is unconstitutional

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED [ The cleck ts eequring | file a complete petthion by refusing 40 accept my motion For leave 40 File, which would resolve, all issues preseated without nedless procedules (in this oartevlar case) normally atending petition Filing. 1] {. Is the Prisonec Lihgakon Reform Bet (PLEA) 3-strite cule’, 2G USC 141609), unconstitutional, siace + chills a prisoners cight 4o File meritorious “close call” claims without reprisal in violation of the. 1% Amendment ? a. Js PLEA's “Sehite cle’ unconstitutional, since. stvikes, cesuthing in loss of in forme pavperis leave, are imposed without affording "some hearing” prior te imposition as due process / the [4” Amendment requires ? 3. Ja 2olt, all claims in the undering cases were. allowed 4o proceed fa forma pauperis as part of a single Case; ln A0IG, 3 PLEA strikes were. issued against Petitioner And in 2019, the district culed the single case's claims were Misjoiaed, Split ther into separate cases, but denied in forma pauperis leave despite the oll ruling = Did the district court ecr iin (e-seceening severed Claims and denying in Forma pauperis leave ? 4. The lower Covets intentionally avoided arguments Challenging the constitutonality of PLRA's 3-etrike law, denying Fair hearing; Ooes His arbitrary ceFusal 40 Fairly heat my claim meet the Constitutional minimums under He 18 Amendment to conshible A “tedress of grievances’, and meet due process cequisites ?