Did the Courts below commit structural error by usurping Law to improperly re-characterize a Class Action §1983 Complaint as Habeas Corpus

QUESTION PRESENTED © Did the Courts below commit structural error by usurping Law to improperly re-characterize a Class Action §1983 Complaint as Habeas Corpus which seriously undermines fundamental fairness, reaching the desired hypothetical judgment, whare the State's "Access toa the Courts" scheme is inherently unreliable to process a claim of a now declared prohibited punishment ? : Should the question left open in Lewis v.Casey, be now fully answered by This Court, with respect to the question above 7? *Id, @, 518 U.S. @, 400-01 i. " PARTIES INVOLVED The Petitioner, Thomas P, Richard Sr., is an inmate confined at SCI Phoenix, (EM-8033), P.0.Box 244, Collegeville, Pa. 19426-0244. Mr. Richard is representing the "Class", himself, as the Court below had not allowed any time for anyone else to interplead and join the Class Suit. Respondents, (Defendants), John Peck, Barbara Jollie, and District Attorney's Office; ara all representatives of the District wherein they reside and are employed. These Respondents are represented by Counsel of Record, David Regoli, Esq., 2 North Main Streat, Suite 206 Greensburg, Pa. 15601. Respondent, (Defendant), Josh Shapiro, 4s the State Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania, to whom, is being represented by Counsel of Record, Yana Warshafsky, Esq. 6th Floor Manor Complex, 564 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219. : di.