Can a court deny in forma pauperis status after previously granting it in related cases, and should parents be accorded appointed counsel when filing pro se under IDEA, Section 504, or ADA?

Questions Presented Denial of IFP without cause, Right to Due Process, Denial of Appointment of Counsel. Severe Potential for Injustice: Proceeding in forma pauperis is not a right, and it is subject to the discretion of the court, however when it comes to IDEA, parents are able to bring claims as the parent. Denying that right to due process, especially after the parent was victorious pro se in the administrative process, is nothing more then obstruction of justice. Certainly when the same courts and the higher court already GRANTED IFP status for related and concurrent cases. Setting a precedent denying parents IFP, who are in financial hardship because of the SCDOE failure to provide a FAPE and asserted their child's civil right to access to a Free and Appropriate Public Education is contributing to our nation's educational infrastructure to crumble. To make matters more concerning is then denying the Motion for the Court to appoint counsel! This severe lack of ethics and constitutional law is dangerous for this country. If we can not protect our weakest and more vulnerable, then what does that say about US? Plaintiffs believe that this is a question that has national importance for the access of low income families and/or families in financial hardship, to be able to access equal justice for : their children's civil rights to access an FAPE. Question #1 A. Can and should a Court deny IFP status after granting IFP in related concurrent cases without cause, when Parents file a Federal Complaint through IDEA, Section 504 or ADA pro se’? ( after the exhaustion of Administrative remedies) ; . B. Should they be accorded the right to appointed counsel when filing pro se’ and/or in forma pauperis in order to have equal access to justice if the alternative is dismissal? 1 Parental Rights Pro Se’ : In the Wilkerman Vs Parma Supreme Court decision in 2007, the court came to a decision that the IDEA law states , “ ANY party aggrieved” included the parents being able to bring a complaint for their child, as well as having claims for themselves. : Further, New SC law states: Section 63-23-20. (A) The State, any political subdivision of the State, or any other governmental entity shall not substantially burden the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of that parent's child without demonstrating that the burden is required by a compelling governmental interest of the highest order as applied to the parent and the child and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Question #2 : 1. Can plaintiffs/parents per IDEA law and/or SC state law use “ borrowed doctrine” from Section 504 and ADA for FAPE, as well as any other related claims, to file a civil complaint on behalf of their child and themselves? 2 Civil Rules of Procedures, “Liberal construction” In order to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America as well as 4th circuit caselaw, and what our founding fathers created for ““ We the People”, by “we the people”, Courts are mandated to give equal access to Justice for Prose litigants. Judges Share their oath to the Constitution and any betrayal of that is unacceptable. Courts are to give “ reasonable liberal Construction” of the complaint in Favor of the Persons, not the “rules”. This understanding was also explained in the Federalist Papers and numerous other addresses. Without Truth, Freedom and Justice FOR ALL, we have no county. Question #3 A. Can a Civil case be dismissed claiming that the pro se’ liberal construction of the complaint is not compliant with civil rules of procedure, alleging/ ruling , “failure to state claim”? B. Do the Civil Rules of Procedures take precedence over the Constitution Of the United States of America and “ we the people” rights to due process? ( not we the attorney’s ) 3