Do Federal Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) & (e) abridge the First Amendment rights of prisoners by requiring them to meet certain standards before they can use the courts for redress of grievances?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED AGRUMENT ONE 1. Do Federal Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) & (e) abridge the First Amendment rights of prisoners by requiring them to meet certain standards before they can use the courts for redress of grievances? 2. Does 1997e(e) require physical injury to recover damage $ for First Amendment violations? If so, since First Amendment violations very rarely result in physical injury, would such a requirement render many constitutional protections meaningless? 3. Is intentional interference with the grievance process a violation of the right to redress grievances and due process, when the intended result is to get plaintiff to quit seeking relief through the grievance process or get him to fail at meeting the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)? 4, If the answer to question three is yes, can defendants be sued for these violations? 5. Does requiring Plaintiff to seek relief according to the PLRA before seeking relief in court, without likewise requiring prison officials to respond to grievances in a meaningful manner and try to work at resolving conflict at the lowest level possible violate the equal protection clause, due process, and the very spirit and intent of the PLRA, which is to solve grievances at the lowest level possible? i QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARGUMENT TWO 1. Ifthe objective prong of Deliberate Indifference (DI) is established at the initial pleading stage, are general factual allegations enough to embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the subjective prong at the pleading stage, since the subjective prong can only be adequately established during the discovery phase to determine what defendant knew or should have known? 2. Does Plaintiff have to be diagnosed with a permanent injury or a fatal condition to establish a DI claim or is a claim sufficiently established upon initial injury or risk of future injury? 8. If Plaintiff resists efforts of medical staff to force him to take a pill that likely ; caused health problems, does Plaintiff's responsible actions absolve the reckless actions of defendants, and does trying to force Plaintiff to take medicine against his will constitute DI? yo, , 4. Is it DI for a nurse who schedules Dr. appointments to refuse to schedule an appointment for Plaintiff after he experienced syncope? ii