Whether a district court abused its discretion by failing to use its own factual finding as proof that a claim was actionable

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Ma) Sinee. this Court req uit res pvese filing s to be construed I iberally, i a district court's factual 4 nding thet a. claim Was proven four wears. and mult ple amend ments aft er tt was Firet asserted evidence that the district court abused ids diseretion when id Racled to uge ite own finding as proo€ thet the claim's Fivst assertion was actionable? (b) Does the bedy of statutes rules, and precedents that controls a pro-se-prisoner delen dant’ tight fo amend a, basic constittcbional dectrnes of fawncss, compel a Court of Appeals to $66 he’ ft thet the defendant 's +ime la, preve n failuvete -javies ti gateineFectivease cldim be adj udicatad on‘ rts mevits accord ngly ? Nete. The Petitisner was transferred +o the Federal Piigsw Camp in Tyseor, Ari Zorn in February, LOIS. SINE that time he has tried unsuccessfully +o vbtan a ty pen writer ribben, but for whatever reason there are nore available to be purchased 4 the prises cerns \eSanye Hen Some sections of the pe dtidny are hand wel fey mh! le oy . wn pieced together Fam prewieus brlegs. Conseq sent Jy ee oe oe asks ies leone of the Curt de cu nee pettdian as it is offered because he has ne other °