Whether leave to amend the plaintiff's complaint should be considered futile if the municipality with no immunity can be added as a defendant and held liable for the multiple undisputed Fourteenth Amendment violations for customs adopted by its officials

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.) In light of this Court’s recognition in Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 635-658 (1980), “A Municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a : _ defense to such liability” Would leave to Amend the Plaintiff’s Complaint be considered futile if the Municipality with no immunity can be added as a defendant and held liable for the multiple un. disputed Fourteenth Amendment violations for customs adopted by its officials? 2.) With Respect to this Court’s Decision in Pulliam v, Allen, 466 U.S. 528-543 (1984), is injunctive relief automatically barred to a Plaintiff if an Official is Immune to Monetary Damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and their Judicial Process is not self-correcting and has no remedy at law? 8.) In light of this Court’s opinion in United States-v. : Price, 383 U.S. 794-795, is leave to amend a Complaint futile if a private person jointly conspiring , with State officials to willfully violate a citizen’s rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution be held liable for . monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? 4.) Are 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaints filed in District Court considered a petition to the government for ; redress as set forth in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? y ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued Page 5.) With respect to this Court’s Decision in Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 25-31 (1991), can state officials be held liable in their individual capacity for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon actions taken in their official capacity? \\,