Is petitioner's First Amendment rights violated when private for-profit corporation denies access to grievance forms required by law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 1) IS PETITIONER's FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED WHEN °° i PRIVATE FOR PROFIT CORPORATION AND ITS AGENTS DENY ACCESS TO THE PAPER NOTIFICATION of GRIEVANCE(NoG) FORMS REQUIRED BY OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE(OAC) _5120-9-31(M), now (L), MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY _WITH OHIO REVISED CODE(ORC) 2969.26(A)(2) WHEN FILING CIVIL ACTIONS IN STATE COURT 2. cece eee ncerccoece 2) IS IT RETALIATION AGAINST PETITIONER WHEN PRIVATE FOR _PROFIT CORPORATION AND ITS AGENTS DENY ACCESS TO THE ’. PAPER NOTIFICATION of GRIEVANCE(NoG) FORMS REQUIRED : BY OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE(OAC) 5120-9-31(M), now : | _(L), MAKING IT IMPOSSIBE TO COMPLY WITH OHIO REVISED --* CODE(ORC) 2969.26(A)(2) WHEN FILING CIVIL ACTIONS IN ) GTATE COURT? . ccc cee cece cece cece rere seer eesenene “~3) IS IT AN EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION OF THE LAWS WHEN ’.). STATE COURTS REFUSED TO. APPLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE : “ "~~ EXHAUSTIVE. REQUIREMENT EXCEPTION ESTABLISHED BY THIS <°,COURT's DECISION IN Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850?. A) IS IT AN EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION OF THE LAWS WHEN ; . STATE COURTS REFUSED TO APPLY THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE : . , APPEAL AND REMEDIES ‘REQUIREMENT EXCEPTION ESTABLISHED BY THEIR HIGHEST .COURT'!s DECISION IN State ex rel. 0 xs ; Teamsters Local* Union No. 436 Vv. Bad. 6£ County Comm'rs, % Te 132 Ohio St.3d-47, S52, TT ZO? nese ener erence cae 5) IS IT AN EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION OF THE LAWS WHEN : OHIC COURTS REFUSED TO APPLY THEIR PRINCIPLES OF STARE DECISIS TO COMPLAINTS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401, 410; Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc. . 132 Ohio St.3d 167, FST? oc cee erence reer creer erevecences . 6) IS IT AN EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION OF THE LAWS WHEN OHIO COURTS REFUSED TO APPLY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER, Ohio Revised Code(ORC) 2505.02(B), TO THE PETITIONER? . cece cece cc ere reece teen ewes cees