Should a local government be dismissed from acceptance of claims and the very beginning of a suit with prejudice giving absolute immunity without allowing time for factual allegations, evidence, documentation and record to be established for the negligent acts of their police officer according to 42 U.S.C § 1983 or the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act?

Question(s) Presented _ Should a local government be dismissed from acceptance of claims and the very beginning of a suit with prejudice giving absolute immunity without allowing time for factual allegations, evidence, documentation and record to be established for the negligent acts of their police officer according to 42 U.S.C § 1983 or the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act? , Whether a police officer may reasonably rely on a narrow exception to a specific and clearly established right to shield him from civil liability when his conduct far exceeds the limits of that exception? Whether a police officer can use the defense of Qualified Immunity according to an intentional tort of assault and battery? Whether a police officer motivation or intent is relevant concerning a 42 U.S.C § 1983 claim or according to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, TCA 202 and TCA 205 governing a police officer negligence? Whether a Final Judgment Order is valid if that order fails to list or mention a state claim with supplemental jurisdiction? This case involves substantial federal questions and deals with broad issues that apply to many different cases. There is legal conflict in this case that arises from issues connected to the U.S. Constitution and federal law. There is a question of exceptional importance and many different issues, concerns and challenges that were not addressed from the acceptance of claims, throughout and before the District Court jury trial proceedings and issues were not addressed in, at or by The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals. A "pro se complaint must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." (Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) and all factual allegations made by plaintiffs are to be taken as true and this entire process and procedures : was not structured correctly constitutionally, lawfully or procedurally to hold all responsible , defendants civilly liable by dismissing Metro Nashville Davidson County with prejudice from acceptance of Claim without allowing time for a factual allegations, developments or a factual | | (ii) | record to be established and that would have revealed an MNPD policy violation holding Metro | Nashville Davidson County civilly liable. If a case is not charged and structured lawfully, | constitutionally or procedurally correct from the beginning then anything after or according to | that case cannot be fair or just and is a miscarriage of justice and creates manifestations of injustices. The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals also did not hear or address issues and challenges raised in appeal based on formality of a pro se petitioner and denied the panel rehearing or rehearing en banc reasoning stating that petition for rehearing was not filed in a timely fashion. The Courts should overturn the lower court's decision and the verdict of the jury . trial in this case to ensure uniformity and consistency in the interpretation and application of law. This case presents significant legal questions, has national importance and the ideal vehicle to clarify constitutional issues, to address vital legal matters and the Courts is needed to provide authoritative interpretations of law to foster a coherent body of law in the reversible legal errors in the lower court’s structure and proceedings. There is‘a question of exceptional importance and needs to be examined that the District Judge in this case in fact stated in the judgment summary order and during trial proceedings that by matter of law Officer Diamond actions and conduct did constitute a violation of petitioner Cedric Adams constitutional rights which would hold Metro Nashville Davidson County liable who were dismissed with prejudice from acceptance and beginning of claims. Petitioner Cedric Adams court appointed representation with their unique skills, knowledge and experience neglected to file a rule %0 motion after defense rested or before submission to trial jury. {t's only two wa