Whether the use of vexatious litigant laws to punish an individual and preclude access to the courts, resulting in excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, violates the Eighth Amendment and due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED / A Bivens case allows a private individual to seek damages from an individual federal officer for unconstitutional conduct (e.g. 8! Amendment). Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843 (2017). This petition involves an excessive fine and a cruel and unusual punishment on Kinney due to improper applications of vexatious litigant laws. For 10+ years, Kinney was repeatedly labeled a vexatious litigant (VL) even though he did not meet the VL tests. These VL orders were done to punish Kinney and preclude him from access to the courts. Here, these VL orders also resulted in obstructions of justice (e.g. by concealing ADA, CWA, and title 11 violations). 18 USC Sec. 1519. When Kinney filed civil rights actions in federal court (e.g. for unconstitutional state VL orders), Judge P.S. Gutierrez issued a federal VL order against Kinney, and imposed excessive fines and a cruel and unusual punishment (e.g. a pre-filing ; review that was actually applied to all his cases). Judicial immunity was waived since this Judge punished Kinney as a prosecutor, rather than act as a neutral arbitrator of a dispute. Sup. Ct. of Virg. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 719 (1980). Kinney filed a Bivens claim and complaint. The ; USDC dismissed his complaint, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal, by using the same’ VL orders to eliminate Kinney’s Bivens claim. i