Whether a defendant sufficiently and properly invokes a qualified immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action lawsuit through broad and general assertions of entitlement

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 8. QUESTION: ONE . WHETHER A DEFENDANT SUFFILIENTLY ANDO PROPERLY INVOKES a ENTITLEMENT TO QUALIFIED IMMun ITY AEFEASE IN 447 U.S.C. 3485 CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION LAWSUIT THRDUOH BROAD ANDK GENERAL ASSERTIONS DE EN TITLEMENT.WHEN PF PROSE PRISONER SUSSTRATIALY MEETS iQAAL TWOMGLY AND FEO.R.C1U.?, BNO WHETHER THE ISSUE 4 AROUNBLE ON THE MERITS? AY TESO, AIA THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERR EGREGIOUSLY AS AMATIER OF FACT ANO LAW \N DENNING THE PETITIONERS MOTION FoR LERVE To PROCEED IN FORMA PRUPERIS ON APPEAL, AS “FRIVOLOUS” ANO FAIL URE TO STATE ACLAIM? Covet) QUESTION: TWO _ WHEN A DISTAICT COURT CONCLUSGRY AND DENERALLY ANALITES EACH TYPE“ OF CLAIM IN A GUNQDLE RATHER THAN EACH “IN AIVIOUAL CLAIM AS & WHOLE” WITHOUT CONSIAEAATION BF THE PLEAAINGS iN FULL, AS UbdLATIVE OF JABAL AND TWOMGLYDOES A APPELLATE LOURT ERR EOREG, JOUSLY IN DENYING THE ISSUE WITHIN APPELLANTS MIFEA ACFAIDOLOUS” AND NOT ARGUABLE ON THE MERITS? AY IF SO, O10 THE OISTAILT CAUATS NELISION REFLECT AN EXERCISE OF OIMCRETION UNDER ZB US.C.§636LAILD AND FEB. R. CW. O. IZ LbML3)? Question: TrHhES WHEN & DISTRICT COURT POST-HOL REVOKES IN LoAPOR ATION OF CLAIMS RPPEMAING WITHIN A PRIOR DEFECTIVE PLEAMING RETER APPRBUING THE INCORPORATION IN CLRATIVE SECSNIA MMENAMENT AT THE ELEVENTH -HOUA AND SUBSE QUEW TLY REPEATEDLY REFUSES A CURATIVE AMEM(MENT TO CORRECT THE TECHNICALITY, DOES A LOWER COURT COMMIT REVERSIOLE ERRDR IN LIGHT OF FOmAA, FED. R.CAUP. 1 AND IS? AN LE SO.DID THE Fr PTH CiRCUcT ERR EOREG IDUSLY IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MIFPA AS “EAWOLOus” AND NOT “AROURBLE ON THE MERITS “ BNTHIS ISSUE? QUESTION: Foun WHETHER A PRISONER-PLAINTEFF MAY AMEND ACOmPLAINT TD CARRECT & YECHWICALITY NOTIEJE® Z3DAYS PRIBR-ON THE OATE FINAL JUQOMENT ISSUES ANNIOR VIR & FED.R. CHV. S42) BR GDLhS MaTION TD CORRECT & MANIFEST ERROR OF LAW THAT THE DISTRICT LouaT OVERLOOKED REGARDING THE DMENOMEN T ? see DUSSOUN V.GULE CONST LANLESRP. , bbO F270 S44 FE THCR. 1481), LEISURE CAVIAR LUC US. Fig IL OLIFE SEAN, OIGE.3N GI ZC THUR.2000) ‘ at “A to AY LFS, HN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERR EGREGIOUSLY WW DENNING , PETITIONERS MIFPA ASFAIVOLOLES “AWG NOT ARGUABLE Bn THE ° MERITS/ON THIS ISSUE? SO AUESTION: FIVE WHEN A PLAIN TIBE SEEKING IFP STATUS ON APPEAL PURSUANT To FEO. Rf? TANS IT CONS TTUTIDALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR THE AISTRICT LOWATS TO AECERTIEY AN APPEAL AY EXCLUSIVELY RELYIAIG ON ITS AISNISSAL DANER PUASUANT TO BAUGH V.TAYLAR, 117 F.2d 147,207 0.0 LOH CAROAIT 1997) TA) LIGHT OF LEWIS V. CASEY ANDO CHAISTIANAURS CO. VEEOC, WITHOUT FAIR LONS(DERATION OF PLAINTIFFS DRTECTIONS IN THE RECORD P Sec Pate vy STOMENS, 1b} F.3d 431 67TH CiRCULT 1098), CELS LE V. EOWA [64 FAd 346 C1TH CIROMT 1494)? te