Whether a district court errs when dismissing a pro se prisoner's complaint without leave to amend for futility reasons when defects could be cured, and whether a court of appeals errs in denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing appeals without merits review due to indigency

questions presented are: Whether a district court errs when it dismisses a pro se prisoner's complaint, without leave to amend, for futility reasons when the defects could be cured with an amended complaint? And whether a court of appeals errs when it denies, without reason, pro se prisoner's leave to proceed In forma Pauperis and ultimately dismisses factually consistent and plausible appeals, in the absence of briefing or adudication on the merits, merely because of the pro se prisoner's indigency? TRULINCS 73608298 WILBURN, ANDRE SHAWN Unit: BRO-K-B ¢ poge aor 5 FROM: 73608298 TO: SUBJECT: Certiorari Nguyen Part 1 ‘ DATE: 09/13/2024 08:05:54 AM JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT a. Orders and Applications in this Case . Pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court, "[a] concise statement of the basis for jurisdiction in this Court" is required to petition for a writ of certiorari. S. Ct. R. 14.1(e). Accordingly, the date of the order being appealed is May 10, 2024. Appx at 1. The date of the order denying reconsideration and panel rehearing is June 13, 2024. On July 08, 2024, the petitioner submitted his application for an extension of time to file the petition for certiorari addressed to an Associate Justice of this Court. On September 09, 2024, the petitioner received a letter from this Court, returning his certiorari petition, and “inform[ing]" him that "the Court has no record of previously receiving the application... for an extension of time" to file the certiorari petition. Appx 4546 (Letter dated 08/22/2024 from this Court returning certiorari petition). b. Federal Laws Conferring Jurisdiction The United States Constitution provides that [t]he judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court {.]" US Const. art Ill, sec. 1. The Constitution goes on to outline that the Supreme Court's “appellate Jurisdiction, both as Law and Fact” is subject to "Exceptions... under [the] Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Id. at 2. Here, as with all cases coming from the federal courts, the Supreme is granted jurisdiction to review "{clases in the courts of appeals... [b]y writ of certiorari[.]" 28 USC 1254(1). The reference to "cases in" the court of appeals has been interpreted extremely broadly, so that virtually any federal law dispute that ever reaches the court of appeals can be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Id. In sum, the only jurisdictional requirement is that the case be "in" meaning docketed in the court of appeals. Gay v. Ruff, 292 US 25, 30 (1934). Thus, the circumstances of this case pass jurisdictional muster.