Whether the systemic discrimination against pro se litigants by the federal courts, including the imposition of punitive sanctions for filing non-frivolous claims, violates their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process

No question identified. : a tt RA AN 5 Lwith its bavraeant. G th vets socked to providing “selective (ushize “Cand inivstice) ta | —Laies tomanage its dockets); And now the systunie. dierimination against 0-clasced litigank has “so far departed from the accepted” it.calls for Scotus. svpevisony power to comedy, nn A. AS USCIS (4), PLGA S-strike! cule,.is vaconstin-tonal agaist ocisoners’ ihm. ght, foc Hacead s issuing" failure, _ to shoe aclam” strikes when a novel, hon-frivolaus, “close call’ claim is culed agauast it. stating a. Clain chilling“ ove cight to File suche clowns int goad faith without pundive tepcisals); 5* a. equal proleetion.cinbis, as Rule Hoo, F.2Ciu8 prottels lavaltes ——Foorn sanction for £iliing tae EXACT same Clase call claims being. ruled. against-a higher pleading shandard for legally un= _—tuuaed.eniianets Hoan for trained lawyers ; 5” Ama, due pratess cigints..assont lncasiag” is Mot alforoed acioc to okrike, imposition ard qov.t deprivatioa of substaatial pcwvelege=-ia forma qnvp eris leave. SCOTUS review of bnis t3sue is warcanted. CO LE CL CL A AE LCE A LES 3, The tls ofagtney noreaally (equite Hae admissions of an.ageat telaled bo las Cenpley_ to have biading, etfect-on_his —-Pcineipal) Buk whether Hese.cules amaly to ule 36 admissians 13 an vaseltled question, which SCOTUS should cesolve ae. OO NL I LC A NE Likely v.US [500s 540.555:560099)]5 “deep-semled favorticen tardano dion’ standard of judiclal bias isundefined as fo what —Constidvles sufficient rust, las proven ianoossible to meth (noone has met it in 3st), SCoTUs has never ce-visikd.oc clacitied koh widely discenaided the. “al most nevec Coan rulings Alone prove bias) unless” holding of Likeky 0nd snberpretled ih as simply “neuteregardless of praof, all wariaating by Ceview « decisinn obte Issue 5.59.05 49 avoid giving indigeats a shoan" cial, iz. i aiving Liling fees. t0.allow case £iling only to impose wehaess fees, for tae gubanean'ing.of ecessary witnesses Haat Mel cannot. pay, Haeren deaging access +0 He proof necessary to actually win de case, sone. tower Coucls iatecaret 26.86.1418 as. allowing, diversinn of Hanse, fees the saute.as.Ciling fees to. avoid thos. absued cesull Some hold 51415 doesnt allan t. Which side iS Corect (San. imaorbant Led, issue SCOTUS should teslve by a. decision her. G._Whelner conshuchinn ociaciples (equite nan-mavant summary judgment be considered ¢3sankd when no ginvine issve. ot material Ench exicts +law warrants is on.wnporbamt Fed, issue fr Scots resolve Considering He consequences, for failing so. DT Cvreut local cules now lockin 3.US Stakes’ po se.prcisonte out of Hae apaeal process waciaats SCOTUS wotecventinn, Bobet &. Tatum, Petibionec ee Eocnell Lucas, Respandert Ceurieait Milwavkee County Sho /lh. atficril caparihy defendant pooh) __Tritin Carlson, Resaomnoent Utocmer jnilotheer,Inenring Co) Melissa Elliot, Respandeat (Pouner _Relaled Cow _Ustu-IBLbaskeen Osbuckohwbeosd) shout, 1-0-1890, 19. c0-1641, Cowl =Esevecd claims fom Ubtuagl] _ | —Tabsieof Conese tage _ Opinions Belay __Constihional.e StotubonProvisions Iavalved : _| __ Statement ob the tae Reasons for Geaating tae Writ ___ . 9-45 Mpmeadices hades: