Did defendants engage in a policy denying parole to a class of plaintiffs?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (1) DID DEFENDANTS ENGAGE IN A SUB~-ROSA POLICY THAT SYSTEMICALLY : AND/OR INDIVIDUALLY IMPOSE PRE-DETERMINED & PRO FORMA DECISIONS DENYING PAROLE BY A QUASI-JUDICIAL PANEL THAT IS NOT AN IMPARTIAL NEUTRAL DECISION-MAKER TOWARDS 99.6% OF A CLASS OF PLAINTIFFS APPEARING AT THEIR INITIAL PAROLE HEARINGS IN CONFLICT WITH MURCHISON (1955, USSC), LARKIN (1975, USSC), McCLURE (1982, USSC), BALISOK (1997, USSC), PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONST. ARTICLE . 1. §§ 7, 15; 24 AND THE UNITED STATES CONST. 5TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS? : (2) DOES CALIFORNIA'S PENAL STATUTE §5011(b) AND CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGS. §2236 CREATE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT _ PROHIBIT COMPELLING A LIFE TERM PAROLEE TO ADMIT GUILT AND BE. A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF CONFLICT WITH GRIFFIN (1965, USSC), : GREENHOLTZ (1979, USSC), MURPHY (1984, USSC),. SWARTHOUT (2011, USSC) AND THE CALIFORNIA CONST. ARTICLE 1. §§ 7, 15, 24 AND THE QO ' UNITED STATES CONST. 5TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS? . (3). DID THE USCA DECISION ERRONEOUSLY BAR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS THAT RAISED BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AS BEING : BARRED UNDER A "SOME EVIDENCE" OR "AS .APPLIED ANALYSIS" PURSUANT TO HECK (1994, USSC) AND BUTTERFIELD (1997, OTH CIR.); CONFLICT WITH WILKINSON (2005, USSC), SKINNER (2011, USSC), ; SWARTHOUT (2011, USSC) AND NETTLES (2016, 9TH CIR-.), WHEN PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS DID NOT RELY ON "SOME EVIDENCE" OR A REMEDY THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN ORDER FOR "IMMEDIATE OR SPEEDIER RELEASE INTO THE COMMUNITY."? , (4) DID THE USCA PANEL'S RELIANCE ON THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE ERRONEOUSLY BAR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS RAISED UNDER THE DOCTRINES . , OF: (1) mootness;: (2). capable of repetition yet evading review; (3) res judicata; (4) collateral estoppel; (5) law of the trial; and (6) harmless error; CONFLICT WITH BROWN (1953, USSC), SIBRON O (1968, USSC), CHAPMAN (1967, USSC), CHAMBERS (1973, USSC) AND i. | . . . : QUESTIONS PRESENTED (Cont.) , oO BRECHT (1993, USSC) PURSUANT TO BOTH THE CALIFORNIA CONST. ART. | 1. §§ 7, 15, 24, 28(d) AND THE UNITED STATES CONST. 5TH AND 14TH | AMENDMENTS? , (5) DID THE USCA PANEL'S RELIANCE ON "ABSOLUTE QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY" AND THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE ERRONEOUSLY BAR : PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS OF HIS STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHT TO EXERCISE A "PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE" AGAINST A STATE TRIAL JUDGE WHO IS : PREJUDICED CONFLICT WITH: CCP §170.6 AND 28 usc §§ 144, 455; MURCHISON (1955, USSC), TAYLOR (1974, USSC), LARKIN (1975, USSC), McCLURE (1982, USSC), CANTON (1989, USSC), BALISOK (1997, USSC) oe AND THE CALIFORNIA CONST. ART. 1. §7 AND THE UNITED STATES CONST. 14TH AMENDMENT? (6) DID THE USCA PANEL'S RELIANCE ON HYUNDAI (2018, 9TH CIR.) ERRONEOUSLY BAR PLAINTIFF'S ABILITY TO APPLY FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION WITHIN THE 42 USC §1983 CIVIL COMPLAINT; CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS UNDER FRCP 23, EISEN (1974, USSC); PITTS (2011, OTH CIR.) AND THE CALIFORNIA CONST. ART. 1. §7 AND THE UNITED STATES CONST. 14TH AMENDMENT? ; (7) DID THE USCA PANEL'S DECISION ERRONEOUSLY BAR PLAINTIFF "LEAVE TO AMEND" THE 42 USC §1983 CIVIL COMPLAINT WHEN THE CLAIM(S) ALLEGED SUFFICIENT FACTS TO SHOW THERE REMAINED "GENUINE ISSUES : OF MATERIAL FACT THAT REMAIN IN DISPUTE AND ARE TRIABLE"; CONFLICT WITH ESTELLE (1976, USSC), ERICKSON (2007, USSC), CALDWELL (2018, 9TH CIR.) AND THE UNITED STATES CONST. 14TH _ AMENDMENT? : O