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 "1,
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.

2. Whether the lower courts should apply Maryland
state statutory-interpretation principles,
rather than the statutory-interpretation
principles for interpreting federal statute, to
the interpretation of Maryland state "saving
statute " (Md. Rules 2-101(b)(l) and
3-101(b)(l)), 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 u. Straub , 490 U.S.
536, 538-539 (1989).

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