Whether, the Supreme Court will consider the merits
of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, pursuant to Pro Se plaintiffs Direct Motion upon
the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit , for
Permission to Appeal Case [3:19-cv-05945], by FRAP
Rule 5(a): FRCP Rules 60(b)(6): Rule 60(d)(1); and Rule
54(b) ; requesting permission from the Court of Appeals,
via 'plaintiff-stated, ' Jurisdiction Statement (Document
1-1, pg. 6-8, in case action [23-8013]). See: Appendix A,
{directly following the Case Opinions for [23-8013]);
Plaintiffs Petition: statements filed, 3/6/2023, [Dkt. 1-1],
Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Permission was denied.

Whether, the Pro Se Plaintiff was righteously
provided 'provisional remedy mandate law, ' to Case [3:19cv-05945], which provides the Standards , that upon any
Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal, failure to state a claim, a provision
for amendment , "must be provided " before dismissal
action can be upheld : [Phillips v. County of Allegheny],
(3rd Cir. 2008).

Whether, the initial case (which wrongly affected its
subsequent case [3:20-cv-12336], by res judicata), was
wrongly dismissed; wherein, the dismissal opinion was
" absent adequate remedy of law" and never provided Pro
Se Plaintiff any curative amendment , or any of the
Standards in mandate law for curative amendment remedy,
per [Phillips], et.al. - Plaintiff did not amend, did not stand,
was not given Opinion Statements why amendment would
be futile per the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Whether, subsequent claims also wrongly dismissed
in a subsequent, timely brought, separate cause of action
case, are also in following, thereby, incorrect and unjust .

Whether the Supreme Court will consider the merits of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit