Whether the court of appeals, under the 'abuse of discretion' standard of review, should have reversed the district court's judgment summarily dismissing Petitioner's pro se Amended Complaint

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; A lheher Ke court of appeals, under tHe “abuse of deseretion' standard of review,should have reversed Ke drsfrrct courts jedlgnent summarily desm essing Attoners 4o Se , and wetter" Amended Omolaint on the Aiemises of being “loo hong? and Feching way Comyaly wth He drstrictcourts Order granting Kim feaveto file on amended Comyalain b! vhere intermediate seretin sf of He record reveals tat th distireheourt farled Kis Courts guidelines on Stindards of review and presents a face! skewing Hat Peltioner re; ceived nsther fall or fair conscderation of his clains From the dostroct court: daring etter the abca/ proceedings nor on reversal and remand proceedings, nov was ka etlorded fhe in andafory! Service of process “on tle Defordants, by te distrrd coueh upon completion of AL LAF: bng Fee peyrents as preserrbed . under 22 USCA, $195 CL) Cagproximetely 2u months hetore te destrict courts Sula seonte dismisse!). Z Whether Provisions of SY C. OS. Linitaion of Actions C481) pert « fre Se Prsoner[Macabrtt "fo being a Continuing fort’ claim for “deorivetion of reasonably sofe and humane conditions of continenrent "based on the Lhawed' design andlor construction of a prison where the structival defect constrhte atoncurrent | . cause "of action fiayary by alloveing Carbon Monoxide produced by the prisons boters ty congregate wethin the Fesilety resulting in toxic conkmmation of jnmates’ Mving areas and sleeping goerters during repeating inccdents of “mechanical malfunction of He poison's bolersS/Hlae G).” 3 here te Court, under the S Anendmentt Crael and Unusual Punisboneat “clause, has addressed essues dealing, wrth varions degrees of protecteon of inmates from confinement under conditions which present known risks of harm such as from exosurels) fe environmental fohacce Smoke, friable asbestos, mold, excessive dustand loaf particles in ke air, and human waste as well OS fire hazards, fo whet extent do He Anendonents protections apply in cases where He particular risk of harm stems from recurring incidents of expasure to Carbon Monoxide. through foie fevels of confamination of te inmates’ huing areas and sfegorng garters ? 4. Whether, asa t-fe threakening mater relating Solely to fe healhk and safety of State Arsoners contined at He Guadaluyse County Correctionel Faedtity and potrorth standing any real ov perceived defects in . Petetioner’s pleadings as Hey relate fo He gestion of oficial /rerson al capacity habilohy Cres) of the individual Defendants y Pabtoner and He presons inmate population, ta ~general, are entithd fo He SP Anendnents protections Fheough te Court$ enforcement of enumerated Lid Rights sthites, Suck as wrth inpanchue relief against the defendants commanding that fhe prisons stractural madeguaces be addressed so as to avoid unnecessary fudare tuciderts of contminetion of te inmates’ living aveas and sleeping guacters wr foxie fevels of Carbon Monoxide, especialh, where the in ecdewty ace preventable with He addrtion of a. proper ceiling in each of fhe respective Boiler Rooms and instllaton of agoropriate. fea-pie on each of the borers.