Whether the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim

Questions) Presented ee dime BOWE V. U-S.,.200 F. 3d_1304,/37/ (FED + CR-2OO) (WHETHER COURTWAS AND WHETHER. COMPLAINT STATES A CLAIM ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW _|REWEWED_DE NOVO.) ., MR GOMER. THE PLAINTIFEIN THIS CASE WAS COMPLIED Wile TE. COPT_ANO PROVIDED ‘mATERIAL Facts” ALONG Witt WAGES EReNED FOR _|WHIG ME WAS APPROVED By (IPS) AND_AccERTED To RETURN BACI-$9, 360-00 ___... |DOLALS_IN_NS. TAX REFUND For. OW: foe HE WAGES EARNED IN QOlO »pwitte pete STOLEN IN) A BREACH OF DATA CALLED “The ANTHEM IDENTITY DATA.BREKH Wien TWE(IRS) Ddentity 2474 BASE WAS. HACKED AND BREACHED TO STEALPEOPUS _—__TIDENTY. To. COMMIT FRAUD «185 240 DEPRIVATION OF REEF BENEATS. AUGUST | _, 201 ML GOMEL. REPORTER THE DELAY AND RRRODB HE WAS TNEORMED. CFA \eSInty BLEAGtIN THECIRS) AND promised % pay Back HE FUL AMOVNT | REFUND CHECK: WIG THEY REFUSE TO 00 $00 82032207: FOAUDULENT RETURNS STATEMENTS» ANDERSOM) Ve LIGERTY LOBBY ING »49F._UcS242A INO. (06 Sec R505 _..W986) THE _DIEPUTED FACTS, ALEGED BY THE PLAINTIFE ARE MATEIAR ewe THES COURT DSHS. GMNER. CLAM FR BEG FRNODS, ASD FOR FANWRE TO STATE A. CLAIM AND WHEN APPEBLED To THE UsS-COURTOFAMEMS, "IAG CLAIM WAS DENIED Foe APPEAL» ARBON STEELO SERY...CO:MeUeS p3!5 FiSd ee eae +2008.) (MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL. INTERPRETATION RELEWE _ ipuenary Rewew.”) 2 18.2048 FEDERAL STATUTE. , DERRWITION OF REDERALCVA Rigi ATS CLAM TS_SUBSECT Fok. REUEF BUT M2. GOMEZ THEPLUINTIER: HAS BEENABLE ite Bese 6 Ua, STH, G TH ANO IG RONSTINTIONAL. mene oe Tue UNITED sTATES -_ Borst Vv. CHEVGON Copp .,.36 Fe 3d )308, 13/4 jam oe orn mir Aes pete cout ET conse —_ IssvEj" THE DI TRICT COURT'S RULING ON THAT ISSUE JS WOT CONCUUSIVE BETWEEN THE PANS”) Sc. HALPER. Ne SHOWERS, J74 -F» 3d. Ale, HO. nie3. (5TH CR-N44B) (STATING Har De NOVO. REVIEWS onsty APPIOPRIATE Fol. DISWUSSALS. Fob. HUE 10 STATE A.CLAWA ON WHICH . _\Peuere MAY bE GRANTED . 918 . 2/955, FRIURE To SECUICE PERSONAL. IDENTITY -SECTIONS _ UNER Vi. §00RD,14.6_F 3d _132.,13Y (Bd CIR1499) HOUInG THAT NIG USeCe GIS (AY AND ORNS 6.3 MAKENCE)(A) _DISMISSALS NRE SUBTECT_To DENOVO Reviews") « ARLEN Vs HARRINGTON ../52_F Bel /43,4Y (414 UR 442 OIA FALULE To STATE JI-CLAIM ARE REVIEWED DENOVO. 1B. $245. FEDERALLY PROTEETED ACTIVITIES. ANY BENERT, : sete ee, PROS, ALA 08 ACUI PoMLeD Oe Ronee BY ace 0 SuBOIMSION THERESE =, 5B WeSC. 2 QU9.. CAPIEIS,A FEDERAL STAINTE THAT MAKES 17 A GUINE FOR SUNEONE ACTING, i OER. COLOR. OF STATE LAW TO DEPRIUE WNOTUEZ PERSON OF FDERAQVILRIGUTS NDENALOP rr SO PARTIES (eI RIL PARTIES BPPEAR NTA E CAPTION OF THE CASE ON THE COVER. PAGE, INTHE CARTION_OF THE CASE. ON TUE COVER PAGE. UST_OE ALL PARTIES To THE_PROCEE DING IN THE Covet WHOSE JUDGMENT ISTHE WV RSECT OF THIS PETITION IS.ASFOUOWS INTERNAL ReVENVE SeAMice DEPARTMENT OF THE TReASVRy . JC RELATED CASES. GALL V.UMTED STATES SSA U-S28 126_S.CT. S86, 54/167 bed. del _Y4s(2007), _ JARRE VW. SHOWERS , 134 F.3d We, PONS (STH cue (9B) TRUDEAU... FepeRaCOmmISHOn, HS6 FE. 34 178186" BI(D.C-Cll 2006) —_.. ARBORI STEEL. SERN COs Ni NS oy BIS F. Sd 1332, 1BBY(FED-CR2003) GORST V.CUEVRON CORP., 36 ©. 3d 1308, 1/314 Ne (Sm CIR 1994) INOERSON N. UBERAY, INC +, UPA. UeS> 2YA,2YG, (06 S 6 CV-2R590S (1936), BALLEN V: HARLUIGTON ,, CPERISGRCORREERELEY (SRF. 3q WIZ MEF. CATH CIR AGB) : HOWLETT Ne ROSE.HAG US. AT 375276 (STATE IMMUNITY Rules DowOT APPLY smme _ leownt $i9ez action) IS S60. $202 Waves mMMUNTY [Oe LL.CLAINS AGAINST FEDEDAL OFFICERS ,AGEMUIS, | wHo ACT IN THEIR OF FILIAL CAPACITY Of FAILED To Act UNDER. Calo OR. Lem~AL AUTHORITY, a [ass N:&-T+ DOPONT De Nemours (Co, _-__|DiceSon) Vs MICRO SOFT CORP. ,. 307 F. 3A 193, AB (Yr cik. ZO0a), _ t . ’ —_, ANDERSON Ne LIBERTY LOBBY, INC. 494, U.S. QUA 248,10 $-CT. ISOS (IGG) mE t ‘DLS PUTED FACTS ALLEGED BY THe PLAINTIFF ARE MATERIAL? piste 7 S.NLEGED BY $m eee ee i | . 4 ABs OF CONTENTS. AE OPINIONS Below, es _ QURISDICTION _ |CONSTTIVTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS voweD BS | STsEMENTOR HE CASE. SSC“ < << ___ [REASONS FOR GRANTING WE WAIT ~ | INDEX