Does the continual disenfranchisement of the Petitioner by The Federal Courts' violate the Petitioner's Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights to Substantive or Procedural Due Process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. “Does the continual disenfranchisement of the Petitioner by The Federal Courts’, as irrefutably evidenced in the Petitioner’s Federal Court Cases (including this case) and associated appeals, violate the Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment Constitutional , Rights to Substantive or Procedural Due Process?” The Petitioner argues that it does. The Federal District Court of Maine has been abusing, among other procedural mechanisms, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) in order to procedurally dismiss the indigent and Pro Se Plaintiff's meritorious complaints against Maine State Government Employee defendants sua sponte (usually by misquoting the Plaintiff and then invoking Denton v. Hernandez) prior to service so that those guilty parties are never required to provide answer in response to Plaintiffs verifiably accurate and well-evidenced complaints. These abuses have been continually upheld by The First Circuit. 2. “Does the well-evidenced fact that the Federal District Court of Maine's decision in this case, and the First Circuit’s subsequent upholding of that decision, is in conflict with multiple instances of United States Supreme Court case law designed to protect Pro Se litigants from the type of abuse by The Courts noted in Question #1 mean that the Federal Courts have abused their discretion?” The Petitioner argues that it does. The United States Supreme Court has issued multiple instances of case law that protect Pro Se litigants from both procedural and substantive Judicial Abuse(s) and the Federal Courts’ actions and decisions have run afoul of that controlling case law. 3. “Does The Federal Courts’ continual and outright refusal to address the Petitioner's well-pled Fact that he has been Tortured by U.S. Government Personnel, and their associated failure to assist the Petitioner in any way whatsoever, infringe upon the Petitioner's Human Rights, Constitutional and Civil Rights, or Rights conferred to the Petitioner under United States and/or International Law?” The Petitioner Argues that it does. The United States Government and Federal Court System has failed to conduct any investigation, or aid the Petitioner in any way, regarding his true, accurate, and verifiable claims that he has been Tortured by U.S. Government Personnel. This nonaction by the Government is in conflict with The Petitioner's basic Human Rights, his Constitutional and Civil Rights, and both Federal and International Law. The Petitioner notes that the Federal Courts have Jurisdiction over Torture (18 U.S.C. 113C) the issue of Torture as it is a Federal Crime as well.as.an International Crime. | . |