Does the Plaintiff's First Amendment right to redress in the form of a prison grievance exposing corruption and illegal acts give the government employees of the agency authority to file false disciplinary charges, thus leading to the malicious confiscation and destruction of constitutionally protected property?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Does the Plaintiff's First Amendment right to redress in the form of a prison grievance exposing corruption and illegal acts give the government employees of the agency authority to file false disciplinary charges, thus leading to the malicious confiscation and destruction of constitutionally protected property? 2. Whether, after Plaintiff has filed a grievance exposing corrupt and illegal acts, a TDCJ officer sent down by superiors toa Confiscate, specifically, constitutionally protected property is allowed to maliciously destroy that property and file false disciplinary charges against Plaintiff? | 3. Whether, considering the lower court's premature order to sever and dismiss, without the benefits of all the tools of discOvery including relevant material facts and compelling evidence of constitutional violations by Jeremy J Bynum and other government employees working under color of law can be ignored proffering for the defendants? 4. Whether a prisoner has equal protection under the Constitution when the defendants who are superiors and are personally and directly involved in their individual capacities do not address and manage subordinates illegal behavior and the lower court ignores relevant evidence aquired through discovery showing deliberate indifference? (i) QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (cont.) 5. When and how far does the brazen destruction of constitutionally protected property without due process and the blatant distegard for prisoners! rights become so outlandish that government employees choose to cover-up and conceal their unconstitutional acts with deception and dishonesty thus shall consequently be held accountable and liable? 6. If the "valid, rational connection" is not met and the "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means af furthering that compelling interest" are not proven by the lower courts, then why is Bynum's unconstitutional and malicious practice af destroying religious property condoned without holding him accountable? 7. Why such harsh treatment towards Plaintiff and such overly broad leniency as Qualified Immunity and Summary Judgment towards Defendant?