Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims on preclusive grounds despite the dismissal being based on pleading deficiencies and not on the merits

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner’s prayed 9 reliefs were . 1) 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 9 reliefs were as Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition or alternative so the questions were part of three test condition requirement of the Writs. ii) Lower -Courts ruled Plaintiff [petitioner] contends, however, that the judgment in the Prior Action was not “on the merits” because it was premised on pleading deficiencies under Rules 8 and 10 and on his . failure to comply with Court Orders under Poulis uv. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). While Plaintiff is correct as to the bases of the prior dismissal, he is incorrect as to : the preclusive effect of such dismissals. Lower Courts’ decisions about preclusive effect on Meritless (not on merits) order is incorrect as below Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 US 497 Supreme Court 2001@502 -503 1) ("The prototypfical] [judgment on the merits is] one in which the merits of [a party's] claim are in fact adjudicated [for or] against the [party] after trial of the substantive issues"). ii) Semtek @503, In short, it is no longer true that a judgment "on the merits” is i li necessarily a judgment entitled to claimpreclusive effect; and there are a number of reasons for believing that the phrase "adjudication upon the merits" does not bear that meaning in Rule 41(b). ° iii) When Moses H. Cone Memorial 7 . Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 US 1 Supreme Court 1983 @footnote[6] ruled that More fundamentally, a Court of appeals has no 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). ; Following USCA3’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). i { iii II.