Whether the Lower Courts violated Supreme Court precedents governing pro se pleading

Questions Presented Oe ‘3° 1. Whether the Lower Courts violated Supreme Court : precedents governing pro se pleading by construing my pro se Rule 59(a) midtion expressly seeking a new trial, a8 a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e), based : solely on the motion's title. 2. Whether the Tenth Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's failure to apply any discernable Rule 59(a) standards to my Rule 59(a) motion: (a) deprives other pro se litigants of Rule 59(a)'s intended protections, (b) creates a circuit split, ©) exacerbates an existing circuit split. ‘ 3. Whether deliberately withheld evidence produced after a non-jury trial, but before final judgement, qualify as newly discovered evidence for the purposes of Rule 59(a) or (e) motions, when the disclosures occur subsequent to the District Court's post-trial decision(s) denying the admission of any newly discovered evidence. 4, Whether the District Court imposed unreasonable burdens under Rule 59(e) by faulting me for not moving to reopen the record to admit newly discovered evidence after trial, when the District Court itself had categorically barred . the admission of newly discovered evidence. 5. When a governmental entity defendant deliberately : conceals the existence of highly probative electronic evidence until after trial, and then refuses to disclose this evidence, at what point does withholding such vital digitized materials infringe upon a litigant's constitutional due process rights, and necessitate a new trial in the pursuit ofjustice? 6. Whether the District Court’s one-sided discovery rulings denying my expert meaningful access to Respondents’ electronic records while allowing Respondents’ experts unfettered access to mirror images of my personal dévices C) 7) i violated my due process rights. 7. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by disregarding Respondents’ spoliation of evidence while imposing an unprecedented Rule 37(c) sanction against me for disclosing evidence that the District Court itself determined was compelling.