Whether Petitioner's claims that his parole was revoked due to invoking his Fifth Amendment Right to refuse to incriminate himself could establish Supervisory-liability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED COUNTI: 1. Whether Petitioner’s claims that his parole was revoked due to invoking his Fifth Amendment Right to refuse to incriminate himself could establish Supervisory liability when they agreed to pursuant to Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d . 338 (1983) and/or other cited controlling authorities. 2. Where State parolee who his parole was revoked, in part, due to refusing to incriminate himself in violation to Minnesota v. Murphy, 529 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 1136, 79 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1984), Petitioner is entitled to new parole revocation hearing. 3. In a retaliation claim, whether petitioner is required to prove the intent to discriminate at the initial pleading and prior to service upon defendants. 4. Whether Respondents acting as supervisors who undertook unconstitutional actions , by their employees should be liable for damages in their individual capacities. 5. Where Petitioner, legal immigrant, and incarcerated in State Prison, was entitled to due process to be informed about his treatment similar to other U.S. inmates incarcerated in state prisons prior to his initial parole release or other wise upon any settlement with immigration authorities could establish a class-of-one claim under village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S. Ct. 1073, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1060 (2000). 6. Where a state accept federal funding for its prisoner’s programming, the state Dep’t. of Carr’s. officials (or the state agency which accept the funding) sued in their official capacities are to be considered waived their Eleventh Amendment Absolute Immunity for monetary damages in a discrimination claim against its legal immigrant under Hosp v. i Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S. Ct. 3142, 87 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1985) and therefore liable for monetary damages. 7. Whether State parole officials entitled to absolute immunity for violation of inmates , constitutional rights are entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of federal law. COUNT H: 8. Where the allegations established that Respondents prison staff who aware of treatment programming for parolees and intentionally failure to disclose the requirement to a legal immigrant parolee that result in revoking his parole sustained a claim of constitutional violation that required service upon them. 9. Where Petitioner named a defendant for claim of constitutional violation (Parole Board Director) and other named defendants admitted to his responsibility, the lower court abused its discretion for dismissing that defendant pre-serving pursuant to U.S.C.S. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). ; 10. Where Petitioner's allegations established that defendants failure to timely disclose the treatment requirement that later resulted in revoking his parole (in part) due to his non-U.S. Citizenship established a claim of discrimination pursuant to village of Willowbrook. . . 11. Where Petitioner was only challenging the time for imposing a parole condition as imposed in a discrimination manner rather than the parole conditions themselves, Respondents should be entitled to absolute qusi-judicial immunity. 12. Where facts supported by official policy established a Respondent liability for unconstitutional actions, Respondent was entitled to summary judgment for the denial of such responsibility. ; ii 13. Where a State employee (parole officer) failed to get approval from supervisors as : required by the law to modify individual's parole conditions is entitled to the absolute qusijudicial immunity. COUNT Ill: 14, Where defendants did not disputed that Petitioner's parole -in partwas revoked due to his refusal to incriminate himself while on parole in violation to Minnesota v. Murphy, 529 US. 420, 438, 104 S. Ct. 1136, 79 L. Ed. 2d 409 (1984), the claim should be still bared pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129, L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). 15. Whether Petitioner allegations against his parole officer, parole officer supervisor and treatment prov