Whether the lower courts erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants despite the plaintiff's evidence of judicial-misconduct, failure-to-comply-with-precedent, improper-fact-construal, inadequate-treatment, self-incrimination, and lack-of-systemic-changes

No question identified. : QUESTIONS PRSENTED FOR REVIEW The lower courts having prejudicated this plaintiff, with judicial misconduct, error beyond harmless, amounting to structural, and manifest in the following issues: 1) When making rulings thought the plaintiffs litigation, courts failing to comply with controlling, precedential case laws/legal standards, cited in plaintiffs writ herein. 2) Courts when granting defendants summary judgment, having construed facts in their favor, against controlling legal standards, precedential case law, cited herein, requiring, and obligating courts to construe and favor the “non moving party” which is this plaintiff. Courts failed to apply the conflicting documentations plaintiff provided to show how defendant's professional judgments were falsified by having solely relied on defendants “conclusionary” labels and failing to credit plaintiffs proof he provided that defendants labels give a false and misrepresented assessment of plaintiffs treatment. In courts summary judgment order falsifies the record intentionally by putting false words in plaintiff's mouth claiming defendants can’t provide treatment because facility rules prohibit residents from having sex with each other. 3) Courts failed to apply and credit, that of plaintiffs evidence he submitted (defendants treatment progress notes) largely has required “behavioral management” and defendants claims as documented that is why plaintiff cant progress courts failed to apply that “behavioral management” as majority methods of treatment issuing are in fact identified as not sufficient to produce long term changes in clients which amounts to inadequate treatment. Defendants treatment issuing and program in general entertains, threatens and intimidates clients to “give up his constitutional rights”. i.e. requiring self incrimination. 4) Courts, while granting defendants summary judgment, allows defendants to avoid liability and continue such violations because of being absent of court orders requiring systemic changes, which is require by case law/legal standards plaintiff cited herein this writ. 5) Courts, while granting defendants summary judgment “cherry picked” defendants documentations, and plaintiffs evidence filed with the courts and during discovery to intentionally and deliberately leave out anything that showed tegal liability against defendants to essentially block plaintiff from prevailing. 6) Courts failed to comply with case law/legal standards that obligate courts to “put defendants professional judgments and documentations” through “litmus test” of compliance to standards sex offender treatment regulations as cited in cases plaintiff cited herein this writ. 7) Courts throughout this litigation failed to locate a willing witness for the plaintiff. Since this case requires plaintiffs challenging of defendants professional judgments, legal standards/case law, plaintiff cited herein this writ. 8) Courts failed to comply with legal standards that permit plaintiff to prevail on criminal violations made by defendant. 9) Courts in summary judgment fails to comply with cases law/legal standards that obligate courts to rule based on law, and not based on their personal judgment, and preference of the litigant, which is by cases plaintiff cited herein this write. The courts did this by seemingly failing to allow plaintiff to prevail, in spite of multitude of fruitful evidence by preponderance of evidence, courts rather seemed to deliberately and intentionally block plaintiff form prevailing because of his confinement at the facility, relying solely on defendants professional judgment. 10) Courts, while granting defendant's summary judgment, then permits them to continue such inadequate and constitutional offensive treatment methods by only allowing some treatment and not meeting the 14" amendments standards of “adequate” treatment sufficient for one to be released.