Whether the underlying case presents one or more Questions of Fact for a jury; and, if no, Whether the case presents one or more cognizable claims that, should the plaintiffs application for pro bono court-appointed counsel have been granted, an attorney presenting such claims could have avoided the pleading and procedural errors charged by the lower courts in deciding the case against the pro so, IFP plaintiff?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , [This Court and circuits have agreed: plaintiffs demonstrated triable issues for a jury on review of similar facts and issues under Title [X, See Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999); Doe v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1 F.4th 257, 263 (4th Cir. 2021); and Papelino v. Albany College of Pharmacy of Union University, 633 F.3d 81 (2d. Cir. 2011).] . 1. Whether the underlying case presents one of more Questions of Fact for a jury; and, if no, Whether the case presents one or more cognizable claims that, should the plaintiffs application for pro bono court-appointed counsel have been granted, an attorney presenting such claims could have avoided the pleading and procedural errors charged by the lower courts in deciding the case against the pro so, IFP plaintiff? 2. Whether the court’s denial of an indigent Title IX plaintiffs application for pro bono counsel, and subsequent judgment that she could not meet pleading standards, imposes a higher burden on an indigent claimant seeking relief under Title IX ina private action? 3. Whether the record demonstrates misconduct or discrimination sufficient to support the plaintiffs position that the court’s judgment cannot stand due to impermissible discrimination and hostility adverse to her rights during the adjudication, and involving the state; and, if no, whether the record demonstrates a departure from proceedings sufficient to impact the judgment, or to require the judgment to be set aside? pe nn |