Whether the due process constitutional right of the petitioner is infringed and the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain it

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | The petitioner filed a complaint against a '‘viola| tion of the Fourteen Amendment and violation of Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The district court decided the petitioner complaint with the findings of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the limitation, without giving an opportunity to file the interrogatories. In effect the court has decided the case on merits. And it is an admitted fact that the court in May 20, 2021, entered an Order for Discovery Plan requiring the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference by June 19, 2021, after which the court suddenly decided the case. Despite the fact that the complaint was in contact with the respondent for the filing of the interrogatories. The lawyers of the defendants have taken tricks to dismiss the complaint by asking to file joint motion : for interrogatories and the petitioner wait for their response but suddenly the petitioner received the decision. The court has irregularly decided the case despite of this fact and the precedent that the petitioner is a pro se litigant. And The United States Appellate Court has also re affirmed the judgment of District Court without any reason. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether the due process constitutional right of the petitioner is infringed and the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain it. : 2. Whether the court has decided the cases arbitrarily and without hearing the petitioner, as it ; is a settled principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard. but in the present case the case the court decided the case without giving an opportunity to file the interrogatories by the petitioner. | i | . 3. Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction under the law, the District Court is proper forum to file the present case and the court has subject matter jurisdiction to proceed the case. | 4, Whether the case is in continuation of the case | filed before State Court, and res judicata is applicable, | this case is separately filed and parties are not same | there for res judicial will not be applicable. | 5. Whether the petitioner has filed the case within | limits prescriber under the statute of limitation. The | case is within the limitation as it involves continuous | cause of action. , 6. Whether the petitioner has failed to made out her case. the petitioner has not given opportunity to file the interrogatories and the merits only can be decided after recording of evidence.