Whether federal equitable tolling rather than borrowed Maryland state limitations and tolling rules should apply to the subsequently re-filed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceedings, when the lower court even specifically stated in the initial per curiam opinion and judgment that “[t]he court's dismissal of a plaintiffs case because the plaintiff lacks jurisdiction is not a determination of the merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction or otherwise curing the jurisdictional defect”!, federal equitable tolling rather than borrowed Maryland state limitations and tolling rules should apply to the subsequently re-filed claim and lead to a different outcome of this case. 1 Tang v. Univ. of Baltimore, Case No. 19-1146 (4th Cir, 2019) 2. Whether the lower courts should apply Maryland | state _ principles, | rather than the _ principles for interpreting federal statute, to . the interpretation of Maryland state “saving statute’ (Md. Rules 2-101(b)(1) and '3-101(b)(1)), which lead to a different outcome of this case. | 3. Whether the lower courts’ rigid application of state law, resulting in a second-time dismissal of , this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim without any | determination of the merits, contravenes 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 538-539 (1989). | , |