Whether a covered entity can maintain an unlawful practice of evading ADA responsibilities

question presented is:: (1) Whether a covered entity of a State can maintain an "unl awful practice" of evading its responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), (carry on with the unlawful practice & evasion to this present day), and still deserve and obtain the repose afforded by the statute of limitations?; and ; PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT (PLRA) The SECOND question presented is: (2) Whether the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation . Reform Act (PLRA) bars a lawsuit by a prisoner who has been . sufficiently deterred through threats, harassment and finally physically “beaten down" and "hospitalized" on two (2) different occasions to the point that the prisoner fears for his life? While these two questions are the basis of the instant appeal the Court is asked to determine whether over Twenty-Eight (28) years of evasion by the covered entity, Tennessee Department of Correction : (TDOC) qualifies as an "unlawful practice" which is ongoing to this day. ; ; The Appellant is now to old to worry about surviving another tour of duty through the Department of Correction gladiator camp. In the event this Court does not wish to grant this Petition for the Writ of Certiorari, and remand this case to the District Court. for a full hearing, Appellant can only say the covered entity will continue to maintain its position with its Thumb to its proverbal Nose toward this Court, Congress, the Department of Justice and society in general. i. . oe . QUESTIOINS PRESENTED . 1) Whether a covered entity of a State can maintain an "unlawful .practice" of evading its responsibilities under the Americans , with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), (carry on with the unlawful practice & evasion to this present day), and still deserve and obtain the repose afforded by the statute of limitations?; and ARGUMENT Appellant contends and the record will establish that the covered entity Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) has been _in wanton violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), since President Bush signed the ACT into law on July 26, 1990. In support of this contention Appellant has attached a copy of the only TDOC Policy he has mamaged to secure a copy of since the respective policy is hidden away under the 300 series of TDOC Policies. This policy clearly excludes all prisoners and only covers present employees and those who seek employment with the covered entity TDOC,. , (SEE ADBENDUM A, “AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLAINT RESOLU; TION PROCEDURES" Effective Date September 1, 2017). In further support of Appellant's contentions that the TDOC has : been engaged in the "unlawful practice" of evading its responsibilities under the ADA the Appellant has attached a copy of a letter/response “he sent to the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution (RMSI) on , December 27, 2016. This letter clearly states that Appellant was in the process of gaining a copy of the required Grievance Procedures under the ADA, However, the response received on January 4, 2017 does not provide the proper and necessary results to which Appellant was entitled under the ADA guidelines. , . ; Under the ADA Guidelines (28C.F.R. §35.107(b) the covered ; entity TDOC is required to establish procedures for handling ADA : related complaints. The Department of Justice (DOJ) developed a ; model grievance procedure for use by a covered entity. Howe ver, the ; covered entity TDOC has failed to adhere to the federal requirements. | It is the expressed belief of T.D.0.Cc. employees who have heard of the ADA. that it does not apply to prisoners. This is an across the board belief which has been practiced from the first day the ADA =pecame federal law. (SEE Pennsylvania Department of Correction, et:al. v. Yeskey, 524/UsS. 206, 118 S.ct. 1952 (June 15, 1998). ~ (SEE Addendum. B, | . : (Letter dated December 27, 2016 from Appellant to ° : “ADA Coordinator Carolyn Jordan and RESPONSE dated ; January 4, 2017 which is devoid of an