issue being raised

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW. | 1. Petitioner, employed for 20 years at the University of Delaware, was arrested by University Police, under allegations of driving without insurance, when he wasn’t driving, had insurance, they had no evidence, no probable cause, and University Police lack jurisdiction to make such arrest, did the trial court err in dismissing the case with prejudice, prior to issuing Summons and before service upon defendants? 2. Was it error for the trial and appeals courts to ignore that Petitioner was not read his rights before, during, or after his arrest? 3. When no defendants have been served with process, and none have entered the case, and the Court dismisses with prejudice, is it an error, and/or violation of due i process and/or Plaintiffs rights? A. When the trial court grants a non-prisoner litigant forma pauperis, and the clerk does not sign and seal the Summons, and no defendants served, then the case is dismissed w/prejudice for statute of limitations, an affirmative defense, yet the case was filed with plenty of time before the sol would expire, is there error? 5. When a case is dismissed under the conditions shown in the above paragraphs, but would have survived a Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, was it error for the trial court to dismiss under § 1915? 6. If the above questions above, do not result in errors, are none of the rules, statutes, or a pro se litigant’s rights violated when judged uses 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to dismiss the case prior to service, and the pleading of affirmative defenses? 1 LIST OF INTENDED PARTIES Not all of the parties appear in the caption of the cover page caption. Petitioner is not sure whether or not the Rules require him to list defendants that were never parties in the case. Summonses were never signed, sealed, or served. No one participated, except the Petitioner does not believe any even realized that they were named in a case. Ex abundanti cautela, Petition lists all of the parties he intended to be defendants: Brandon Harris; Alexander Peterson, III; Clerk, C. Temple; Jessica Zeilman; Maria Perez-Chambers; Katherine L. Mayer; Carol Lemieux; A.J. Roop; : Colonel Joseph S. Bloch; Alan Davis; Patrick Ogden; Carl C. Danberg; Matthew Meyer; Nicole Majeskil; Jana Simpler; Dennis Assanis; John Carney; Eris S. Yuan; | County of New Castle, Delaware; State of Delaware; University of Delaware; New Castle County Justice of the Peace Court No. 11; Delaware Dept. of Motor Vehicles; Delaware Dept. of Transportation; New Castle County Court of Common Pleas; Zoom Video Communications, Inc. JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI This Court has jurisdiction over Petitions for Writ Certiorari. It is within the Court’s discretion to grant this Petition, as there are compelling reasons for the Court to exercise its discretion. The US District Court, and the 3*4 Circuit Court of Appeals has decided important federal questions in a way that are far departed from other District Courts, and US Courts of Appeal. It is imperative that this Court exercises this Court’s supervisory power. 2 | Rulings by the US District Court of Delaware (‘USDC’) is in conflict with other US District Courts, as well as rulings by US Courts of Appeal. The 34 Circuit Court of Appels which affirmed the USDC ruling, even though the ruling conflicts with other US Courts of Appeal, and this Court. Case Law from these rulings will make it difficult for other courts to properly ruling on the same issues. Other District Courts, and appellate courts, may find it very difficult or impossible to make fair rulings. U.S. District Court of Delaware (“USDC”), dismissed Case # 1:22-cv-01026 on 12/06/2022, [App. 1]. Reconsideration, was denied 1/09/23 [App. 2] Notice of Appeal timely filed and docketed, # on 1/12/23 [App.3]. Order by 3*4 Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-1063. [App. 4], issued 5/22/23. Motion for Rehearing En Banc [App. 5], timely filed 6/26/23. Rehearing denied, [App. 6], on 7/14/2023. This