Whether the district court improperly decided factual issues in granting summary judgment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IMPROPERLY DECIDED FACTUAL ISSIES WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF FACTUAL ALLATIONS ON AN UNPROVOKED BEATING BY ; OFFENDER AT CORRROADS CORRECTION CENTER THAT SEVERLY ASSAULT ON’ MR. WASHINGTON THAT PRISON OFFICIAL EXHIBITED DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO MR.WASHINGTON HEALTH AND SAFTY FAILURE TO PROTECT AND DIDNOT FOUNDING THE JUDGE COURT ORDERED EIGHT CIRCUIT FINDS VERIFIED COMPLAINT DEFEATES SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN FAILURE TO PROTECT CASE THE CONSTITUTIONALL IS VIOLATED WHERE DEFENDANTS KNOW OF THE DAMGER OR WHERE THE THREAT OF VIOLANCE IS SO SUBSTANTIAL OR PREVASIVE FAIL TO EMBRACE A POLICY OR TAKE OTHER REASONABLE STEP WHICH MAY HAVE PREVENTED THE HARM. THE DUTY TO PROTECT STANDARD REQUIRES PRISON OFFICEIAL TO SEEK OUT HARM TO INMATE RATHER THAN ALLOWING THEM TO WAIT UNTIL A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS HARM DEVELOS. THE STANDARD RECOQNIZES THAT INMATE WILL ONLY BE REASONABLY SAFE IF PRISON OFFICEIAL TAKE PREVENTIVE STEPS BEFORE RISK BECOME SUBSTANTIAL. EVEN IF PRISON OFFICEIAL ARE NOT AWARE OF A SPECIFIC DANGER OTHER THAN THE GENERAL RISK INHERENT IN ALL PRISON THE EIGHT AMENTMENDT DUTY TO PROTECT. SHOULD REQUIRE BASIC MEASURE TO PREVENT (ASSAULT) AND OTHER FORMS OF HARM TO OVER INMATE OR STAFF. A DUTY TO PROTECT STANDARD WOULD ALSO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF ESTABLISHING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRISON OFFICIAL IS NOT EXCUSED FROM LIABILITY SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DIDNOT KNOW OF THE RISK TO THE DEFENDANTS MR. WASHINGTON THE DUTY TO PROTECT STANDARD WOULD CONTINUE BY ASKING WHETHER THE OFFFICIAL COULD HAVE DISCOVERED AND PREVENTED THE RISK TO MR. WASHINGTON THROUGH REASONABLE INSPECTION. RATHER THAN SENDING THE SIGNAL THAT IT IS POSSIBILITY TO AVOID LIABILITY BY DENYING KNOWLEGE OR AVOLDING IT A STANDARD THAT REQUIRES OFFICIAL TO SEEK OUT KNOWLEDGE WOULD DEMONSTRATE A COMMITMENT TOWARDS GREATER SCRUTINY OF THE INFLICTORS OF PUNISHMENT. IT WOULD ALSO BROADEN THE SCOPE AND POTENCY OF THE EIGHT AMENDMENT DUTY TO PROTECT INTENT OF PRISON OFFICIALS IMPLEMETING A LIABILITY STANDARD BASED ON NOT REASONABLY PROTECTED BY DEFENDANTS. 2. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OF APPEAL IMPROPERTLY DECIDED FACTUAL ISSIES IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDGE COURT ORDERED ON POST JUDGMENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF ; WHEN THE STATE OF MISSOURI CROSSROADS CORRECTION CENTER. FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THAT COURT ODERED WHICH THE DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO COMPLY. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND VIOLATION MR. WASINGTON'’ DUE PROCESS BY NOT HOLDING A HEARING AND WHETHER THE TH EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDER THE DISTRICT COURT TO HOLDING A HEARING ON THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF COURT ORDERED ON POST JUDGMENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF, MR.WASHINGTON SUBSTANTAIL RISK OF HARM TO HIS PHYSICAL SAFETY AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THIS RISK AND FAILED TO MITIGATE IT. POINT III STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 3.WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT IN DENIED PLAINTIFF FACTUAL ALLEGATION RAISE A MATERIAL ISSUE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATE IN HOUSTON V. LACK 487 U.S. 266 THE EIGHT CIRCUIT OF APPEAL AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT MISSOURI ST.JOSEPH IMPROPERLY DECIDED FACTUAL ISSIES MR. WASHINGTON TIMELY FILED A DOCMENT THAT WITH IN THE TIME SPECIFIED FOR FILING EXCEPT THAT ANY DOCMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TIMELY FILED IF IT HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE UNITED STATE POST OFFICE OR PRISON MAIL BOXS WITH FIRST CLASS POSTAGE PREPAID AND PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH THE TIME ALLOWED FOR WITH THE RULE OF THE COURT PURSUANT LAW OF COURT SEE HOUSTON V. LACK 487 U.S. 266. : POINT VI : STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 4. WHETHER THE EIGHT CIRCUIT OF APPEALS ON THE MATTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT IMPRPERLY DECIDED FACTUAL ISSIES THE PLAINTIFF FACTUAL ALLEGATION RAISE A MATERIAL ISSUE EIGHTH CIRCUIT FINDS VERIFIED COMPLAINT DEFEATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOT