When should a total disabled incarcerated indigent prisoner be appointed legal assistant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | 1. When should a total disabled incarcerated indigent prisoner thats P under the direct care and jurisdiction of the california department ! of corrections and rehabilitation as a totally dependent of the the | state corrections be appointed legal assistant in a 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 : against the state CDCR and its for the | deprivation depriving plaintiff of his constitutional rights? : _2, Wheti should a totaldisabled incarcerated indigent inmate/patient be | appointed pro bono counsel in a 42 U.S.C. §'1983 that is totally ! dependent on the state CDCR? oo | 3. When should a total disabled incarcerated inmate/patient in a : 42 U.S.C § 1983 case be consider a complex case to handle if when ! . he. or she is fully dependent on the state or corrections for full | representation? : ‘ , } 4. Why are only prisoners properly filed legal proceedings in the | ' screening process in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 being intentionally dis| criminatory illegally screened out by california district courts : and court of appeals Ninh Circuit judges. when inmates submits ‘ | _ their properly filed actions naming CDCR and its Employees/ | Contractors under the continuing violation doctrine that was | : properly joined together in their civil right complaints as a. pro se indigent state prisoner? 5. Why is it okay for legal professional attorney's to join defendants in thé same similar course.of conduct arriving from retaliations _ together from different jurisdiction under the continuing violation doctrine in claims against CDCR and its legal control,but within the same similar actions prisoners acting in pro se indigent prisoners is being denied the same legal protections 7 to prosecute their claims against state defendants? © . | 6. Why are stateprisoners in CDCR custody being intentionally dis| criminated against to properly join defendants in their claims of . retaliation or threat to safety in the same corrse of conduct of . CDCR and its when the california of correctios is within the same and under the state of california acting as ane | public entity? ; | 7. Why are state prisoners being intentional denied to process their cognizable claims properly joined together under the continuing violation doctrine Laws,but professional lawyers are being allowed : to bringforth them same similar claims against a large valume of ; defendants working as agents of CDCR and the STATE of California in different jurisdictions of CDCR against CDCR and its Employees/ oo Contractors under the same continuing violation doctrine act? | oe CONTINUED : QUESTION(s) PRESENTED | 8. Should a legal: defense fund be set aside for indigent state prisoners | thatzare totally disabled and dependent on the state of california for advocation and legal assistant when indigent and unable to afford legal aid or counsel to hire indivisual in these complex “ cases of medical vr mental ADA and the-.use C of forse on disabled state. prisoners? 9. Who should :-be:liabze.to legally represent indigent dependent total ; disabled state prisoners in their indivisual complex civil complaints that are fully dependent on the state to advocate their inmate/ . patients rights and icare? . : 10. Why are the american with. disabilities act being discriminatory : over looked by the district and appeals federal courts and -magistrate ; and district. judges when it comes to ADA STATE PRISONERS CLAIMS ~ . who. allege medical and mental health abuse by CDCR and its Employees/. ~ contractors? . 11. What is the legal standard for a legal complex case to grant pro™ bono services for total dependent [ADA] indigent pro se prisoners incarcerated that has no High School Diploma,GED or College Degree : educations on top of his high serious risk disabilities of medical ; and mental health needs and safety that. plaintiff could not cure the . , deficiencies to likings when refused limited pro bono counsel. : } 12. When does it become discriminatory by the court and abuse of authority 7 ‘to h