Does a person or entity have immunity from prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when rights secured by the U.S. Constitution have been violated by said person or entity acting under color of state law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does a person or entity have immunity from prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when rights : that have been secured by the United States Constitution have been violated by said person or entity acting under the color of state law? Should the Ninth Circuit have appointed counsel to sit before it for a comprehensive debate — on : petitioner’s behalf — to discover this case’s hidden value? Is it possible that the District Court did not apply the “serious questions” test, thereby making an error of law in denying the TRO in this urgent situation? Was it a case of misconstruing the facts that lead to the legal conclusion in this matter? 1 OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW From the Central District of California The February 20, 2018 Orders Denying Plaintiff's Request for a TRO or Preliminary Injunction are attached at App.’s 1 thru 4. On June 27, 2018 the Judge Magistrate dismissed the Complaint with leave to file a First Amended Complaint. From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Petitioner seeks review of the course of action by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in electing to deny much needed relief on June 21, 2018. That order is attached at App. 5 and App. 6. —_—_ Os , JURISDICTION The alleged violations of prisoner’s , Constitutional rights are ongoing (in part) e.g. blocked Library access despite a highly detailed complaint, Rule 65 TRO, and subsequent preliminary , injunction appeal pursuant to 28 USC § 1292; that decision disregarded the TRO after consideration. Certiorari petitioner supplied 90% of the documentary evidence up front; because of a clear, urgent risk to his Health and Safety posed by several corrections officials. The Petition is authorized by ; Rule 10(c) and timely, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13 and 30.1. ee Ce 1 OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW From the Central District of California ‘ The February 20, 2018 Orders Denying Plaintiff's Request for a TRO or Preliminary Injunction are attached at App.’s 1 thru 4. On June 27, ; ; 2018 the Judge Magistrate dismissed the Complaint with leave to file a First Amended Complaint. From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Petitioner seeks review of the course of action by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in electing to deny much needed relief on June 21, 2018. That order is attached at App. 5 and App. 6. —_———_—__——___ ¢ —_ JURISDICTION ; The alleged violations of prisoner’s Constitutional rights are ongoing (in part) e.g. blocked Library access despite a highly detailed complaint, Rule 65 TRO, and subsequent preliminary injunction appeal pursuant to 28 USC § 1292; that decision disregarded the TRO after consideration. Certiorari petitioner supplied 90% of the documentary evidence up front; because of a clear, urgent risk to his Health and Safety posed by several corrections officials. The Petition is authorized by Rule 10(c) and timely, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13 and 30.1. ——_—___—_—. @ —_ 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS This pro se petitioner’s case involves application of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which involves petitioner’s health and safety, and jail guards acting under the color of law. This case also involves 28 US.C. § 1292 issues. And, 1st and 8th Amendment Issues are visited in regard to meaningful access to a Law Library, and cruel and unusual punishment. 9