Whether the Supreme Court should define the elements of the Constitution's adequate civil detainee treatment program

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED i. WHETHER THE MOST HONORABLE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME CCURT HILL DEFINE THE ELEMENTS CF THE CONSTITUTIONS' ADEQUATE CIVIL DATAINEE ia REATMENT PROGRAM. SEE HOWE VS. HOLT 2018 WL 646305(WHICH EFFECTS TWENTY STATES "SVP" PROGRAMS). 2. WHETHEK THE COURT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HISTORY AND THE MAGJEITUDE OF THE CASE. THE COURT MUST CONSIST-. ENTLY REEVALUATE THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AT EVERY STAGE OF LITIGATION. SEE WALKER VS. PRICE 900 F3d_933,2018 WL 3967298(7thCir. ). 3. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEKE THE PLAINTIFF (PRO-SE) PRESENTED aA..GENUINE DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACT ONIWHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN DENIED ADEOUATE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FOR HIS DIAGNOSIS OF "OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER “NONCONSENT". BY MINIMAL INADEQUATE AMCUNT OF TIME ,BY UNLICENSED THERAPISTS AND RETALIATED ‘AGALNST .BY: RILING CLVIL RIGHTS ‘ACTIONS!’ «: AND GRIEVANCES BY DENYING THE PLAINTIFF ADVANCEMENT AND TREATMENT FOR HIS DISGNOSIS IN THIS FIVE PHASEPROGRAM IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Phi. ‘