Whether the petitioner's substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when the Circuit Court and Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the medical malpractice wrongful death claim

QUESTION PRESENTED This medical malpractice wrongful death claim brought by the Petitioner on behalf of the estate of Betty Jane Matlock which has been dismissed twice and the Petition for Review was also denied. The Circuit Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals alleges petitioner of committing an unauthorized practice and rules his complaint as nullity. The Questions Presented are: September 10, 2021, around 4:30pm. Just before entering the courthouse too pick up transcripts, the Honorable Judge Ralph C. Ohm exit the building and we had a less than three (3) minutes conversation. He said “he was proud of me for appealing his verdict and will be praying the Arkansas Court of Appeals will turn things around”. I asked was he serious and he said yes and reminded me he was a believer also! We shook hands and said GOD bless you to each other. If the judge had any doubts or concerns about his ruling, why didn’t he just write a letter to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on my behalf? (2) why are the Arkansas laws of the land 28-48-102, Ark. Code Ann. 16-62-101(a)(1) and Ark. Code Ann. 16-62-102(b), which support the rights for the administrator of the estate being completely ignored by the Arkansas Court of Appeals and the Arkansas Supreme Court? (3) Why wasn’t motion to correct on record investigated when error was made by the original Circuit Court reporter and petitioner requested she be recused in preparing his paperwork before submitting to the Arkansas Court of Appeals? (4) Why didn’t the Arkansas Court of Appeals Remand the claim back to the Circuit Court instead of dismissing it with prejudice? Although they were not raised in the Circuit Court at the May 27", 2021 hearing: (5) Why were petitioner’s Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process Rights Violated? Substantive Due Process Preliminary question: State Action Public functions: if a private entity is performing a task that has been traditionally, exclusively performed by the government, the Constitution applies (Marsh v. Alabama: privately run town, exception applied) — very narrow (Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison: -f exception did not apply) . Entanglement: if the government affirmatively authorizes, encourages, or facilitates unconstitutional conduct, the Constitution applies. Either the government must stop what it’s doing, or the private conduct will have to comply with the Constitution. (Shelley v. Kramer: courts cannot enforce racially restrictive covenants; Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth.: there is state action when the government leases premises to a restaurant that racially discriminates)— courts have never laid down a specific ruling as to how much entanglement is required for state action, but this is the basic rule. 1. Is it fundamental? Yes a. Traditional i. definition of liberty (Allgeyer v. Louisiana) ii. deeply rooted . iii. _ traditionally protected b. Closely related (Whether or not the constitutional interest is so intimately related to a fundamental right that you cannot exercise the fundamental right without protecting the constitutional interest.) — only used in San Antonio ISD y. Rodriguez 2. Has there been a Yes a. Traditional i. direct and substantial interference ii. theory of culpability (state of mind) Depends whether legislation or executive official/person -| Legislation: If fundamental right, presumed to be arbitrary and capricious under strict scrutiny; if social/economic under Carolene Products, rational basis, presumed not to be arbitrary and capricious (Post-Lochner) Executive Official/Person: prove arbitrary and capricious by showing shocks the conscience (intent, opportunity to deliberate, AND in light of deliberation, the decision manifests reckless indifference/gross indifference/lack of care for the complaining party) — no presumption (p. 1146-47) : iii. _ liberty, property, life 3. Is there sufficient justification for the infringement? (compelling for strict scrutiny, legitimate for rational basis) 4. Is the means suff