Whether the district court erred in denying petitioner's claim of denying access to the court and equal protection of law and due process under the Fourteenth and First Amendment

No question identified. : ) vesTiaucs) Henenined PENIONEA PReSeNTED TO THE Distt CauAT A CLAIM AP DEMWLUG ACCESS TD THE Caner Aud "UAL PROTECT OF LAL! AUO DUE PROCESS UMOER THE FOURTEENTH AUD EIKST ANEQDEIENT [) Té THE OADER FROM THE DISINIcT COURT DoodMeut SEVENTEEN ALLOWED PETTONER To PROCEEDED) WITH HIS UDLORABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OF ACCESS TO THE COURT (JHEAI ZHE RESPOUDENTS (tO AMT Provided HIM did A CERTIFIED FILED MARKED OF THE Recor Be SD HES PROCEED WITH A PETTiON Eom LuniT oF eAmornas IN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT®, LIHY DiDA'T THE DISTRICT «COURT lve Hid Relier 2 L Ta Doturaeait. THirtyoe (31) FAGE (2) Section (2) FILED "OCTORER I™ 2018” THE RESPDODENIS AokED PDK EXTEDDEN TIME FOR FIESPDISE PY FOURIER (4) DAYS TO CoodUcT A CONCLUDE DiSCovERY . OCSHDUIIAIG THE DisteleT Covi CRAMTED Er Zo \OtoMENT THIATY-Tud (32). Z) 15 Li Noy Due Proless OF LAW RiSuaar Jo FepeAal Faves o€ Cuil PROLEDUAES FULE.39, 87 AND BX PRETAINIAS TO DefAuct Aad (eCARATORY GuObMenT APIeN ONE Huwone Ad PTY (isd) DAS F Litt AO FiesPDASE: TILL"MARCH OU 201%" BY “THE FAESPDNDENTS 7 6 , TABLE OF [nent OPINIONS PELL)... [. Sorisolction a | CONSTITUTIOUAL AND STATUTORY Praviion Tovowen... & OVATEMENT OF CASE... i ~REASUALS FORK Contuiind THE WAIT... 6 COUCLUSION ... we —— Gadek Tp APrennites