Retaliation-against-civil-rights-lawsuit

QUESTION PRESENTED wo Whether the 3 Wardens' had a, meeting of the minds decided the fate of thé Petitioner's issued retaliatory ordered. to their entire WCI Department ‘ against him to“do whatever necessary to stopped his civil lawsuit Smith v. Eréckson et al then authorized, directed, participated, and condone. iti . iv. his brutal discriminative mistreatments under the First, Fourth, Eighth, os a as well the Fourteenth Amendment. The Petitioner's presented overwhélming °* preponderance of the evidence that supported materials issues of factual " allegations. oe , i Whether Respondents' breached DOC permanent sworned signed contract inadh' ered to ministerial act in the treatments of the Petitioner's discriminatively abused their power and-authority to, engaged in. conspiracy retal-. '. datory ordered misconducts: against hin carried’ out byissuing falsed, un+ 4 “" veliable, reports. Presented overwhelmin prepond“ erancé of the evidence under the, First, Fifth, and the Fourteenth Amend. a ment supported materials issues of factual allegations. Whether Respordents' breahed DOC permanent sworned signed contract abused power and authority failed to adhered ministerial acts released dangerous inmates-prisoners’ from cell's aware of..the physical brutal violent attack. ed and assaulted on the Petitioner's life stood watch without intervening . duration of,\2 minutes before radio assistance just to carried out the 3 , wardes' retaliatory ordered against him couple with issuing falsed, unreliable, and untrustworthy Conduct report. Presented overwhelming prepond: erance of the evidence under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment, supported materials issues of factual allegations. . ig Whether Respondents’. breached DOC permanent sworned signed contract deli' ' berately inadhered to their own ministerial acts in the denial of emergency: healthcare treatment to carried out conspiracy ordered to realiated against Petitioner's for the exercise. of civil or : constitutional rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment. Presented overwhelming prepondérance of the evidence that supported mat: erials issues of factual allegations. , Whether Respondents' breached DOC permanent sworned signed contract abused power and authority inadhered to own ministerial act in the denial of proceeding due process and due process hearings for minors as well majors falsed, unreliable; untrustworthy Conduct reports under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment. Presented overwhelming preponderance of ‘the | evidence that supported material issues of factual allegations: . Whether Respondents’ breached DOC permanent Sworned signed contract deliberately recklessly and indifferently inadhered to their own ministerial acts in releasing private medical. information to the 3 wardens' used to carried out conspiracy retaliatory ordered against. the Petitioner's that ; endangered his life as well:as others removed from medical permanent restrictions prescribed by PSU doctors, under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment. Presented. overwhelming preponderance 6f the evidence . ‘that supperted material issues of factual allegation, = ._ a : -, . \ . Whether Respondéents' brea¢hed DOC permanent sworned signed contract abused power and authority inadhered to their own ministerial acts in.the denial Petitioner's. investigation. into the criminal misconducts of prison officjals; prison st#ffs', employees’, as well its agents’ relating to the saftey, security, health, and to maintain orders under the First, Fifth, .. . Eighth and Fourteerth Ament as well Equal protections Clauses Presented overwhelming prepénderancé of the evidence that supported material issues ‘of factual allegations. — ; . Whether the U{S.. District Court's was bias clealy reckless and erroneous abused of his or it's discretion exceeded his or it's jurisdictions in: the complicited acts to protected the Respondents’ from disciplinary and criminal proseéution of t