Whether the U.S. District Court erred in granting a Supplemental 1983 claim

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I, Whellor the U.S, Distett Courck tiv gerwting $ Suclamentt 1 | a sid not Keke en ele Ahe onto, 2. Welle Ps Fock A el et of AE tnd URE of ical cane anel/or ov: FdSol poli y rie under the / ie Onitel Glades Constithion)tuhids inlike the SM mendonend, acccrclingly. | 3, Whethee the (be of Phiotzal, h Fine pepinst 4 pre-aiol oletaivee, PrallMay cid viounted le Dei by aeckley couse seas Phyciook heres and Inyfuay Ye Prrvell May ee p matter net ees foe such excess ve Phyl oe, ale? te punishment, nccondirgly. 4, Whether the U.S, Diteid Coutts decision, to dismiss Pavel loys civil ahs Lauusuh, Cont hited with the heloing in the Unfled States Cuprere Courtiolecistory of ghowthg SeRbus Physealingury to Win Av excessive foace Lawsurt pecoedngly. 5 Whel eakeol the l)S. Cou dented ad nie and proper. acces fo Count. te te Pca RASA Meinreegeth het Lap demend ae Caf ns due process of Louw, petonl ng