Whether the district court and court of appeals erred by applying Heck v. Humphrey to bar petitioner's § 1983 malicious prosecution claim, despite the Supreme Court's decision in Thompson v. Clark holding that favorable termination occurs whenever charges end without a conviction

1. Whether the district court and court of appeals erred by applying Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), to bar petitioner ’s § 1983 malicious prosecution claim, despite this Court ’s decision in Thompson v. Clark, 142 « S. Ct. 1332 (2022), holding that favorable termination occurs whenever ® charges end without a conviction. 2. Whether the district court ’s sua sponte imposition of a June 17, 2020 cutoff date for all claims —before petitioner ’s indictment was dismissed with prejudice in 2021 —conflicts with this Court ’s accrual doctrine and deprived petitioner of the ability to litigate nearly a decade of misconduct. 3. Whether the ex parte denial of sanctions and termination of discovery — without notice, briefing, or adjudication under Rule 37—violated due process and the Judicial Canons, and whether the court of appeals erred in ratifying that deprivation as “waived. ” 4. Whether the district court ’s sua sponte conversion to summary judgment while discovery remained outstanding, and its dismissal of the Middlesex Borough Police Department without findings under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), violated Rules 16, 37, and 56(d), and deprived petitioner of a jury determination on probable cause and malice. 5. Whether systemic misuse of psychiatric evaluations to prolong prosecutions and suppress civil claims —recognized by a New Jersey court in 2025 as requiring a Temporary Restraining Order —raises issues of exceptional national importance warranting this Court ’s intervention.