Whether a district court errs in dismissing a pro se plaintiff's complaint without fully considering incorporated earlier complaints and allegations of sexual harassment, and in declining to exercise jurisdiction over state and federal claims or appoint counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Petitioner Original complaints alleged that her supervisors sexually harassed her on a regular basis then retaliated when she reported their harassment. The District Court nevertheless found that I failed to state Title Vll hostile work environment and retaliation claims after examining only on her final complaint, which did not include some of the detailed fact allegations, from earlier versions. My case raises four questions. e Where a Pro’se plaintiffs final complaint incorporate my (O)riginal complaint along with exhibits, and then references two claims from her earlier complaints throughout, should a district court consider the earlier complaints when ruling on a motion to dismiss? e Where claims for breach of a collective bargaining agreement are governed by federal law and a Pro’se plaintiff raises such a claim under both state and federal law, does a district court err in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the claim? e Where a district court finds that a Pro ‘se plaintiff pleadings are difficult to decipher “yet those pleadings include allegations of explicit and repeated sexual harassment, does the district court abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel? e Where knowing that the respondents never used the JUST CAUSE EFFECT when disciplining an employee and refusing to grant an employee’s request for a Union Steward and failing to fairly bargain with the Union breaching their fiduciary duties and for firing an employee while under contract without cause are these things contended to be worthy of a petition for writ certiorari? .