Whether the California Supreme Court prejudicially abused its discretion and acted in excess of jurisdiction when it refused to issue a decision on the merits

No question identified. : ft —s . ey ” 2 || 1.Has the California Supremé Court (CSCC) prejudicially abused its discretion by repudiating United States Supreme Court (USSC) controlling 3 authority and the will of State Voters by changing and disregarding Senate Bill 42 (1976) and its "Seven Category Sentencing Structure” and ; 4 Assembly Bill 476 (1977) Legislative Declaration declaring that punishment for crime is determined by the Legislature and imposed to a final5 ity by a court of law as Determinate Terms, and then unlawfully transformed the "punishment for the crime itself", into uncertain terms; 6 against the will of the voters, its own precedent and this Court's authority in violation of Article IV § 9 of the State Constitution and 7 the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution? : 8|| 2. Based on the facts presented in this case, has the CSC and the Attor-=. ney General abused their discretion by repudiating and ignoring the 9 mandatory provisions of the State Constitution and USSC controlling precedent when they knew. a State Legislator unlawfully used the initia10 tive process to defeat Legislative Policy that he could not do by Referendum in exchange for Quid Pro Quo contrabutions from the Prison ll Guards’ Union and special interest groups whose goal was to recreate uncertain and disproportionate punishment to Petitoner and thousands of 12 the mostly Black and Hispanic prisoners wrongfully sentenced? ' 13]/ 3.Has the CSC prejudicially abused its discretion by ignoring its governing authority and USSC controlling precedent by allowing a Executive 14 Branch Ministerial Agency (without legislative and/or judicial Art. III powers) to arbitrarily and capriciously exercise these exclusive powers 15 to extend Petitioner's term beyond his credit earning date and to misuse the judicial power to determine who is and who is not a threat 16 to public safety; without a trial providing uncertain punishment on . whether or not Petitioner is a public safety risk and extending his 17 term for a crime yet to be committed? 18 PARTIES 19 (1). Petitioner, Allen R. Auten, is a prisoner at the California Insti201} tution for Men, Chino, California, requesting a decision ordering Respon21}} dents to comply with USSC authority that will affect thousands of State 22; prisoners who are mostly Black and Hispanic who are imprisoned under a 23 || repealed law's sentencing structure without jurisdiction. The Respor24}; dents are 1. Kathleen Allison, Secretary of the California Department of 25 || Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR); 2. Jennifer Shaffer, Executive 26|| Officer of the Parole Agency (BPH); 3. Rob Bonta, State Attorney General 27|| (AG); 4. Kamala Harris, (previously notified as the A.C.) and 5. Gavin C. 28 || Newsom, Governor of the State of California, et al. (Pg.1 of 15]