Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's claims and imposing sanctions

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW : Rule-14.1(a) Appeal of Order granting Defendant — Appellees’ Motions to Dismiss & for Sanctions, and Judgment dismissing all claims on May 6, 2021 (5-6-21), by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas-Amarillo Division (ND-TX); and Appeal of the Affirmation of the district-court’s finding on Oct. 27, 2021 (10-27-21) by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (5th-Cir.), based on improper factualfindings on behalf of the sophomoric district-court. Required Showing (Issues & Standards presented for Review) — The main-issue is the liability of Defendant — Appellees for the violent-attack & subsequent of Murphy at his ; secondary-residence in his drive-way while in T.D.C.J. Page iii of 16 \ y uniform after a 12-hour shift at the Maximum-Security Prison, which was allegedly perpetrated by Defendant — Appellee“Moore”, while utilizing the company-truck & uniform of Defendant — as an employee, who was storing a loaded-handgun in the glovebox & brandishing it at her mother’s house. In addition, the secondary-issue is the novel legal-issue in: : general of whether the district-court abuses its discretion when it arbitrarily & capriciously assesses over $20K in Sanctions-Fines, pre-Answer without any findings of fact whatsoever in its Judgment against a Pro-Se Victim for even daring to come into the Azng’s Court for Justice, in order to deter supposedly frivolous-lawsuits against multi‘State, energy-companies that commit torts in Texas with their ex-con employees. Beyond that, the legal-issue & standard of review is whether the district-court committed reversible-error by Page iv of 16 | making findings of fact that are Clearly-Erroneous, and/or by Abuse of Discretion interpreting relevant case-law; specifically, whether the district-court erred by ordering a‘ Dismissal with Prejudice on May 6, 2021 (5-6-21), and/or by ordering Sanctions against Pro-Se on May 6, 2021 (5-6-21). Clearly, the districtcourt abused its discretion when it arbitrarily & capriciously assessed over $20K in Sanctions-Fines, preAnswer without any findings of fact whatsoever in its Judgment against a Pro-Se Victim for even daring to come into the King’s Court for Justice, in order to deter supposedly frivolous‘lawsuits against multi-State, multi-, . million-dollar energy-companies that commit torts in Texas with their ex-con employees. Obviously, the district-court made findings of clearly-erroneous facts when it zsmplicitly found that Plaintiff ~ Appellant “Murphy’s lawsuit was Frivolous, but also when it Page v of 16 explicitly failed to make any correct factual-findings in its Judgment! The district-court abused its discretion by allowing Defendant — Appellees to not Answer for almost a year now & counting, by granting Defendant — Appellees’ frivolous Rule-12(b) dismissal-motions, and by allowing Defendant — Appellees to stall Plaintiff — Appellant“Murphy’s initiative with frivolous Rule-12(b) dismissal-motions, pre-Answer. This (28 USC § 1332) Civil-Complaint (ECF-3/ROA. 3) alleges Trespassing, and of Emotional-Distress (L.1.E.D.), as well as Present & Future Monetary-Damages suffered by Plaintiff — Appellant“Murphy” and caused by Defendant — Appellees, under Texas-State Common-Law and CaseLaw. Page vi of 16 | PARTIES TO PROCEEDING AND RELATED CASES Rule-14.1(b)(i) Marcus A. Murphy v. Amanda Cameron Moore, Blattner Energy, No. 2:20-cv-00190-Z-BR, U.S. District . Court for the Northern District of Texas (Amarillo). Judgment entered May 6, 2021 (5-6-21) by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk. Marcus A. Murphy v. Amanda Cameron Dalton, also known as Mandy Moore; Blattner-Energy, No. 2110589, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judgment entered Oct. 27, 2021 (10-27-21) by, Judges Costa, Ho, and Duncan. Page vii of 16