Whether a prisoner's right to access a county courthouse and public records is different than a regular citizen

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED é 4 ISA PRISONERS RIGHT TO ACCESS A COUNTY Cover House. AND PUBLIC RecoROS _ UNDER THE RST af Fou TEEWTH AMEHOMENTS DirreredT THAN AK REGULAR OTIZEN 2. CAN A Yankton County JUDGES ISSUE A”Policy a ‘ADVISEMewT "To THE YawkToN County CLERK OF Covet, TO ONLY Communicate with A PRISONERS Law ie? AND NeveR WE PRisoWER WITHOUT Vio LATING A PRisoueRs’ RIGHT To ACCESS THe CourTS , RIGHT To Access JLOIGAL DocumenTs, RIGHT TO DUE Process , And RIGHT To EQUAL PROTECTION oF LAW Unven THE ARsT AND FouateeTd AMEND MENTS 3. DID THE Yawktos County CLEek oF Covet VioLATE THE Petiiov e's DUE Process RIGHTS AND SDCLIBA-31CREDA. CRIP. SSCA) on SDCL 23A3-2 (peo.R.CRIM p ab) Weed SHE CHMIGED THE PETiTiowee’s 4. 999,999.49 Ristitution > & mowths AFTER THE PRTNOWER WAS Sev Thence. | DURE His D@ECT APPEAL | WitHouT NoTICe Awd witout My JUMGAL INVOLVE mEnr ? | 4. an THE PETITIONERS DEPRIVATION oF His RIGHT To Access : Ve Nc Reco “lee THE FST AWD FounteswTH AMENOMENTS , By Tie, . nal ve Couaty LERK OF Couets MO Doels) Estasuich & 1993 Lingiuiry WER US. v. LAWIER, 520 U.S,259,271 Cag?) | BEGUSE THE RIGHT 15 “WeLL EstaRLgHED ® | QUESTION(S) PRESENTED S. Dozs SDCL 2Y4-J1-45 Avmonrze Yaukton County To CHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR PRE-SEWTENCE Con FINE MENT WitHouT Nowe OF Juma AnVoLVEMENT OR Does THIS Paamice VioLATE THE Periionke’s DUE PRoCESS RIGHTS UNDER HUDSON. v. PALMER. 46a US. SIT, 533 (1984) & DID S.DDo.c, Policy |. 1.B.2. Aumorze sp.pac. . To SEIZE THe Petitioner's CARES AG STIMULUS CHECK | OR Were THE PetiMowee’s DUE Process RIGHTS VioLaTen UNDER HudSoNn Vv. PaLmeR, 46% U.S. 519 eS) (1984), 1. DID Y aniketon County Vio Late THE Pettionees DUE PRotess RIGHTS UNDER Hudson V. PALMER 46% U.S, 511,533 C1984) Wien! THEY “RetaLiateo AGAINST THE Petinowe BY: CHARGING Him AN ADDITIONAL 1409 wy Comewensar Ress Puasave to Spc au EUS) WitHooT Wonce: wirtaur — SEdUAr TAVGLVEME WT, AND FOR ASME Pe Rion THE PetetoVER Was . UNEGuWo tay NoT ia) Wauktoa! County, custody ¢ rig “Uy hiro: oot : h. UNDER WHAT LEGALS TANDARD SHouLN. Covats Review Reconsi ERATION Motions: Fiteo i A Civic Case? . 4. SHOULD THE Distect Court Have ISSuEQ SANCTIONS UNDER Feo R. CV. P16 to THE. ResRevDewT AND for HER AntoRWEy FoR, Friliale To Follow THE DisteteT Cours Rute 16 SCHEDULING ORDER AND Cone DUCT DURING Summagy JUdG MENT ? Oo Cc