Whether the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the pro se civil-rights complaint before requiring the defendants to answer, and whether the court of appeals erred in failing to vacate the sua sponte dismissal

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner’s prayed reliefs were i) National importance of having the US Supreme Court decide or conflict with USSC ruling, or importance of similarly situated over millions of citizens or the first impression is raised at USSC. Petitioner’s prayed 10 reliefs were as Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition or alternative so the questions were part of three test condition requirement of the Writs. it) When Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F. 2d 40 Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1988 ruled that “this Court [USCA 2nd Cir] has repeatedly cautioned against Sua Sponte dismissals of pro se civil rights complaints prior to requiring the defendants to answer”. . Dist Court sua sponte dismissing the complaint before defendants to answer and USCA38 failed to vacate Sua Sponte Dismissal is error. iii) When Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 US 1 Supreme Court 1983 @footnote[6] ruled that More fundamentally, a Court of appeals has no ; i occasion to engage in extraordinary review by mandamus "in aid of [its] jurisdiction[n]," 28 U.S. C. § 1651, when it can exercise the same review by a contemporaneous ordinary appeal. See, e. g., Hines v. D'Artois, 531 F. 2d 726, 732, and n. 10 (CA5 1976). ™ ii “ ; Following USCA32’s ruling is error . Mandamus relief is unavailable because he may challenge the District Court’s dismissal order through the normal appeal process. See In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Circuit. 2001) (noting that, “[g]iven its drastic nature, a writ of mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary appeal”) (citation omitted). ii a . iii . II.