Whether pro-se-plaintiffs-with-disabilities-should-receive-accommodations-or-counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. To avoid erroneous deprivation of constitutional rights, including right of access to the court; should this Court determine that pro se plaintiff's with severe limitations of disability and/or stigma of self representation prejudicing compliance with court processes, receive accommodations appropriate to his/her limitations of disability and/or appointment of counsel to | i assist in addressing the demands of court processes rather than suffer a dismissal with prejudice to avoid such to amend and/or to avoid indicia of discriminatory bias. | | 2. Should the Ninth Circuit have decided the motion for appointment of counsel timely filed by petitioner with severe acute medical conditions and permanent limitations of disability seeking assistance with the _pre-filing process and appeal, prior to issue of an Order dismissing the appeal for allegedly stating “insubstantial” issues on appeal. } . i ; 3. Whether a review of petitioner’s submission of district court orders on appeal and statement of facts or law which are relied upon for purposes of the appeal are in good faith, | “merit further review,” and should have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. | 4. Did the Ninth Circuit err in alleging pursuant to a 20 year old pre-filing order, that the issues on appeal are “insubstantial” denying further review; thereby, sustaining a wrongful dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend where the facts/law on the merits of any cause | in the FIRST amended complaint were NOT considered, where petitioner’s motion for ; i | appointment of counsel to accommodate limitations of disability for timely compliance with medically impossible demands of the court was denied, where the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted and/or amended to state a claim was denied and where a dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend was not proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. | | | | | | | | ii ,