access-to-the-courts

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Under Supreme Court Rule 10() a) Petitioner questions the correctness of the Appeals Courts' cases as noted in Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 at n.9 (2002); as well as, as applied to the facts here and municipal liability. b) Petitioner, amongst potential future plaintiffs, need clarification of municipal liability in backward-looking cases, as well as, as applied. Petitioner respectfully requests erudite and perspicacious review and a holding and dicta cementing the apparent lacuna between the Courts of Appeals and this Court regarding municipal liability and backward-looking claims. c) Thereafter answering “b)” — Petitioner questions the correctness of the judgments of the District Court of Utah and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions, de novo. For example: 1) Did state a claim upon which relief may be granted? Harbury at 416. The District Court and Defendant both failed to meaningfully address Petitioner's Monel/x Canton x Tuttle x Connickx Harbury (etc..) (municipal liability access claim) as it relates to Petitioner's State of Utah Constitutional right to a remedy (Section 1, Article 11) — the 10th Circuit declined to enter such a "morass;" and, 2) Should the opinions below be vacated, reversed and remanded, with leave to amend, and/or with instructions consistent with opinion?