Whether the 7th Circuit's dismissal of a pro se litigant's civil rights complaint constitutes a denial of access to courts and violates due process

Summary General Parker, a disabled African American male, alleges a series of civil rights and constitutional violations stemming from events following a fire in his low-income housing in 2020. After sustaining second-degree burns while extinguishing the fire, Parker was allegedly battered by his building manager, Marsha Moses, who kicked in his door the day after the fire. This incident initiated a series of events that Parker claims involved conspiracy, collusion by state agents, and repeated violations of his rights. Key allegations include: • Police Misconduct: Parker called the police on Moses after the initial assault, but they refused to respond after learning Moses was white. A week later, Moses allegedly trespassed and assaulted Parker again, but instead of arresting her, police arrested Parker for battery. • Retaliatory Eviction: Three months later, Parker faced eviction proceedings based on false statements by Moses and her attorney, allegedly violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Parker claims the judge in the eviction case lacked jurisdiction and improperly pressured him to discuss his criminal battery case. • Prosecutorial Misconduct: Parker alleges the prosecutor pursued a baseless battery case against him for 18 months, during which his courtappointed attorney and the prosecutor allegedly colluded to pressure him into a plea deal. The case was dismissed two weeks after Parker obtained new counsel, using the same evidence available 18 months earlier. • Homelessness and Harm: Following the retaliatory eviction, Parker became homeless and suffered physical and emotional harm. He was eventually released from medical care related to Moses' actions. • Clerk ’s Office Errors: Parker filed a complaint in 2024, but the 7th Circuit Clerk delayed filing it, falsely claiming it was received later than it was. Additionally, the clerk failed to file Parker ’s motion for an extension of time to amend his complaint, leading to its dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. • Judicial and State Agent Misconduct: Parker alleges that state agents violated federal criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245) and that the lower court falsified documents and refused to file his claims properly. • Appellate Court Errors: The 7th Circuit upheld the lower court ’s decisions, allegedly without reviewing Parker ’s brief, as it made false claims about the filing dates and addressed deficiencies in Parker ’s complaint that he, as a pro se litigant, was not warned about or given the opportunity to amend. Parker seeks Supreme Court review to address these alleged violations, including the misapplication of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, due process violations, improper treatment as a pro se litigant, and systemic procedural errors, as well as fraud, improper service, and the denial of access to justice. ii 1. Did the clerk ’s office ’s failure to file the petitioner ’s complaint and motion for an extension of time constitute a denial of access to the courts, in violation of the petitioner ’s constitutional rights? 2. Did the lower courts improperly apply a two-year statute of limitations to dismiss the petitioner ’s claims, and should the statute have been tolled due to procedural errors or other equitable considerations? 3. Did the lower courts fail to provide the petitioner, a pro se litigant, with the opportunity to amend his complaint, contrary to the established principle that courts must afford leniency to pro se plaintiffs, thus did the Lower Court Decided an Important Federal Question in a Way that Conflicts with Relevant Decisions of this Court? 4. Did the state court judgment violate due process and lack jurisdiction due to fraud and improper service of the summons, as alleged by the petitioner? 5. Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bar a federal court from hearing a claim for monetary damages when the plaintiff does not seek to overturn a state court judgment, and did the lower courts misapply this doctrine in dismissing