Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims for violation of their constitutional rights, including due process, free speech, and arbitrary authority

No question identified. : Dsthis Pelibecete ldibererce by | 3 on alad-TCumO, TE MS. Guil Aap Conision CotheCine L hemen Jud The lay G0 het 2 | Dhiho is Ces Pon sib CTE Shih Hip? ye Detalnm eet ACEO , Un lo al Chest “ONT Solicitesfion +e Fiedace fee 2 | FikereeG ment Hct Hisautthd | (onilacesitel Othe Sensible For Peseta hacss In 1S CeouUndtTy GA ! : Carat in fo hay Posie te Dace : the & Yeon euT, He CT) faen (ZeFes c 6 OCommente Ai TAs 7. j bable(gseFpanl b) ees Th e [Aesun voC-fob Cle oteut Sl | Have-the Absolute Cispt te he Fee 0 c | Ac biteney Aucthe ety puclPoredive Debelrment 2 D ree Lest Asisorl: A Undorstetection! pud Ae bitty Substiticte pee low Library Aetess J %) De os-the PocSmnmectte be InnseentSHU ef alu, the ftbSo Le Vignt to ViSh-fecfion by Sacer 4) Rorflooldee gbt-20 Un CeoBCH Pll osc fo (Cecinve Proverting evidence pnd G5el medericl ) 2 (FeV: Joa son (60:0 1795) \/ Retaliation 7 of .