Whether the Pennsylvania state court judicial system has created a hands-off doctrine for pro se litigant's 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil-rights complaint alleging 1st-amendment, 8th-amendment, and federal-religious-land-use-institutionalized-person-act violations

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN ITS COMMON PLEAS COURT, COMMONWEALTH COURT AND STATE SUPREME COURT HAS CREATED A HANDS OFF DOCTRINE OF THE PAST IN RELATION TO 42 U.S.C. §*1983 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT OF PRO'SE LITIGANT CHALLENGING 1st AND 8th AMENDMENT _ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER RELIGION AND FEDERAL RELIGIOUS "\ ‘LAND USE INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSON ACT IN THIS CASE OF 1st IMPRESSION -” WHERE THE COMMON PLEAS COURT TRANSFERRED THIS CASE TO COMMONWEALTH COURT WHICH DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS FOR MONEYTARY DAMAGES AND ENTERED A OPINION WHICH VIOLATES “FEDERAL LAW STANDARDS AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE STATE SUPREME '. COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIRMED THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OPINION WITHOUT ~~ “x OPINION ON THE ISSUES RAISED WHEN THE APPELLANT PRO'SE INMATE HAS THE ~ LEGAL RIGHT TO APPEAL THE OPINION OF THE COMMONWEALTH COURT AND BY THE =~ “SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA NOT ISSUING A OPINION DEPARTED FROM ALL... . FEDERAL COURTS AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PRECEDENTS IN THIS CASE? Co EF 2. WHETHER STATE INMATE WHO HAD A FEDERAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE a, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA NOT TO BE FED ANIMAL PRODUCTS a MEAT, FISH, EGGS, TURKEY, CHICKEN, MILK, AND CHEESE UNDER THE INMATES... RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WHOM Ber KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THE FEDERAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY FEEDING THE _ INMATE EACH MEAL ONLY A BOLOGNA SANDWHICH WHICH PROMPT THE INMATE TO FILE A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT IN PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT UNDER FEDERAL ist AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL RELIGIOUS LAND USE INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSON ACT AND FEDERAL EIGHTH AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE SECRETARY. OF CORRECTION AS A PRO'SE INMATE STATED A CLAIM IN THIS CASE ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND FEDERAL COURT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE COURTS RECORD? 3. WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE SUPREME COURT NOT ISSUING A WRITTEN OPINION IN THIS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS CASE OF A PRO'SE INMATE ON THE MERITS , OF THE PRO'SE INMATE APPEAL TAKEN AS A LEGAL RIGHT VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION STANDARDS AND ACTS AS A BAR FROM THE COURTS DUE PROCESS FOR PRO'SE INMATE PROCEEDING UNDER FEDERAL 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS?