Has California's justice system forgotten what was taught by this Court's holding in Wilson v. Seiter

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : 1. Has California’s justice system forgotten what was taught by this Court’s holding in Wilson v. Seiter [501 U.S. 294 (1991)]. (Regarding 8th Amendment inquiries requiring only minimal showing of “specific deprivation of single human need must exist. . ,”) as it allowed its department officials to deprive prisoners of manifold necessities for months? 2. By issuing a summary denial, did the state fail to accord petitioner’s federal constitutionally guaranteed rights in this matter? 3. Did the state courts violate their Article 6 oath by their failure to resolve petitioner’s meritorious claims? 4. Does the 14th Amendment due process demand non-silent regulations regarding lockdown, a key function within the operation of a state prison? 5. In light of petitioner's liberty interest being at stake, should that require CDCR’s rule making body to draft a regulation governing usages of lockdown procedures to explain for: 1) the cause for initiation of the lockdown, 2) duties during and after a lockdown and 8) key considerations overall that would facilitate improvements in the determinative 7 process, thereby avoiding any future occurrences of harm caused by indiscretions. ii 6. Did the 9th circuit court of appeals wrongly decide Norwood v. Vance as it may relate to Petitioner’s habeas claims of being denied adequate outdoor exercise? 7. Should this Court more often question the wisdom behind Correction’s Agencies unconstitutional decisions . . , thus reviving speculation into age old deference for modern day, high-tech complications? 8. Should widespread judicial standards be established because of the enormous weight of Civil Rights violations encompassed inside arbitrarily © determined, month(s) long lockdown situations? 9. Is the state’s compulsive use of sub silentio designed to prevent Federal Authority from acquiring a thorough view of material issues—the prerequisite for a full quorum discussion? 10. Should the initiating of Lockdowns exceeding 72 hours become a decision solely entrusted to the prison’s nearest Superior Court having experience in handling judgments of such astounding consequence? 11. Does this example of the abusive usage of lockdown by a Warden demonstrated below, pose a serious enough risk to prisoner’s health—pro tanto it affects all inmates in a facility—to generate concern by this court for the instant cause? 12. Despite petitioner’s innovative proposal, is this yet another example of California turning a dull heart to another great way to get on the fast track towards lasting improvements and soften the impact of some of the more alarming abuses that distract iii focus away from attempting to remedy a nearly dysfunctional system already burdened down by the weight of overcrowding? 13. Does the substance of this matter expose California’s prison system as routinely creating overly restrictive customs—those founded upon pretextual goals that violate conditions precedent when the “safety and security” smokescreen is being announced much too often? 14. Did the California Supreme Court deliberately refuse to acknowledge correspondence from Certiorari petitioner because it feared the extra strength of merit especially the Plata implications and the retaliation allegation? 15. Did the states’ decision to deny relief imply bias derived from petitioner’s numerous critiques of its prison conditions in the past? SO