Can the fact that the defendants' actions resulted in a deprivation of federal constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment be considered frivolous due to the petitioner's lack of skill and knowledge in the science of jurisprudence?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . G) Can the Fact that the Defendants Vrelated fo Stabe Stato les, Hat vesu ted ina depoivation oF Federal Constitutional guarantees against Cevel and Unusval Punishment be considered Frivoloos, de to Petitjoner/ Flaca L fes Sack oF Skill and Anows ledge in the Science of jurispredence ? (2) rea Statute reQuires the placement oF “Bhiad Spot ” safety . Measures, and Falls %o clo so, ore not the Defendants Liable For injories that occur in those “Blind Spots 7’ (2 Does fhe uoy Me yury docers relevant fo the Jack of Bliad Spot sate ty meosvres, and does the “ype oF permanent myury attect the Consideration for releeF ? C1) LF based pon fhe undisputed Facts, fhe Petitroner/ Plariateff has demonstrated factval reasons far sut, but ss not. shel or hnowledg able “a bbe Law, are not Ais Due Process and Levual Protection guarantees denied, based Upon his ynabe | ty to perect /ega ( Felings ? Ss) Were fhe pliboner/ Haat th bve frocess.. Rights for ther. denied. 7 2 when. he noved for an Amended lomplaink pA Lorreck Aus COL TAs . Seeking SL against Lebureaithe va ther “Obie hapacity “gal Was...