Whether petitioner Billy Ray Jackson's 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint states a claim against the respondent state officials under color of state law

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether petitioner Billy Ray Jackson’s allegations in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint brought against the respondent(s) state official(s) of the Texas Workforce Commission Bryan Daniel, in his individual capacity; Julian Alvarez II, in his Individual capacity; Aaron Demerson, in his individual capacity, construed to be persons for the purpose of section 1983, construed the provision “under color of any statue” to include virtually any STATE Action including the exercise of power of one “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer’s are clothe with the authority of state law” (United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 61 S. Ct. 1031, 85. Whether the respondent(s) Bryan Daniel, in his individual capacity; Julian Alvarez III, in his Individual capacity; Aaron Demerson, in his individual capacity are respectively an official of city and of county government is action is thereby transmuted into one for deprivation by the State of rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment. Paul v. Davis, 42 U.S. 693 (1976). Whether government officials attempt to enforce an unconstitutional action under color of State law, sovereign immunity does not prevent people whom the law harms from suing those officials in their individual capacity for monetary and punitive damages. This is because they are not acting on behalf of the state in this situation. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Whether irreversible, government actions under color of State are neutral and gener-ally applicable , and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Due Process Clause required by the Fourteenth Amendment, whenever they deprive a United States citizen of Life, Liberty, and . Property .RITESH TANDON, ET AL. v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. No. 20A151. Whether petitioner Billy Ray Jackson a 62 year old African American at-risk worker with underlining medical conditions at high risk to COVID-19 (diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and prostate cancer), and a household member (wife) is 65 or older. Also, petitioner Jackson had a constitutionally entitled protected “liberty” interest to refuse to return to work according to the Texas Workforce Commission and the (CARES) Act guidance, which should have trigged a | requirement that the respondent(s) Bryan Daniel, in his individual capacity; Julian Alvarez IIE, in his Individual capacity; Aaron Demerson, in his individual capacity “must” the state must provide a full hearing before a hearing officer, 1 | : finding that the Due Process Clause required such a hearing before a state terminates a u recipient's continued unemployment benefits payments. Goldberg v. Kelly. Whether petitioner Billy Ray Jackson have shown that he was, if fact, within the statutory terms of eligibility and had a claim of entitlement to continued unemployment benefit payments that was grounded in the statute defining eligibility for them and had a right to a hearing at which he might attempt to do so. Goldberg v. Kelly; and the respondent(s) Bryan Daniel, in his individual capacity; Julian Alvarez III, in his Individual capacity; Aaron Demerson, in his individual capacity has given any legitimate reason for the decision and no opportunity to challenge it at any sort of hearing. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408. Whether the respondent(s) Bryan Daniel, in his individual capacity; Julian Alvarez IH, in his Individual capacity; Aaron Demerson, in his individual capacity deprived petitioner Billy Jackson of his | right to appeal or obtain administrative review an adequate timely notice, to appoint a referee, who held a hearing) pursuant to State law,” if he receives a decision that says, “we cannot pay you benefits” Pursuant to this provision the respondent(s) failed to provide an adequate timely Determination notice, to appoint a referee, who held a hearing, without affording him and opportunity to respond or providing him a hearing at which he might attempt to shown that he ha