Whether prison officials' intentional obstruction of an inmate's access to personal legal papers and court materials, implemented through standard operating procedures, violates the First Amendment right to petition and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause

No question identified. : with a copy of it attached hereto pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, and making petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari due on or before August 16, 2023. GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION Petitioner seeks aNinety (90) Jay extension of time to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, makiny his new deadline for filing it on or before November 14, 2023. Petitioner is not seeking this extension is not an attempt to dealy these proceedings whatsoever. Preseatly Idaho Department of Correction ("IDOC") staff members, Access to Courts Coordinator Sandi Frelly, and Progerty Corporal Elizabeth Noble have chose to use IDOC Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) as a means of inentional “obstruction in Petitioner's attempts to have full access to his personal property as well as his legal property so as to not be able to meet the oresent deadline with this Court. All in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and right to prusue civil rights litigation in the federal courts, which has violated Petitioners First Amendment Right under the U.S. Constitution. With these Ip0C officials present actions of hindring and impedeing his access to his personal property papers and legal papers for this case he is not able to meet the current deadline of August 16, 2023 to submit his Petition for A Writ of Certiorari. Petitioner has set forth more detailed facts in the accompanying Affidavit In Support of Extension of Time to File Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, and by this reference is incorporated herein as if restated in its entirety. Petitioner seeks an additional 90 days to file his Petition making the new deadline on or before November 14, 2023. -2 LEGAL ARGUMENT Petitioner has set forth facts within his accompanying Affidavit regarding as to how IDoC Prison officials have intentionally implemented IDOC Standard Operating Procedures 405.02.01.001, Access to Courts (SOP 405) and Standard Operating Procedure 320.02.01.001, Property: State Issued and Inmate Personal Property (SOP 320) as a means of intentional administrative obstruction, of official interference with individual presentation of his claims to the courts. Petitioner has set forth facts that SOP 405 and SOP 320 violates the ~ Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause due to their intentional administrative obstruction, of official interference with his presentation of claims to the courts that is the heart of this issue. Just one year after this Court in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) held that one had to prove an "actual injury" and not just a theoretical deficie3ncy in the state's access to courts program, that is, the inmate mst show "that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. Id. at 351. The Alaska Supreme Court in Mathis v. Sauser, 942 P.2d 1117, 1120-23 (Alaska 1997) had determined that a prisoner need not show an actual injury when prison officials have inentionally implementing administrative obstruction of "past or imminent offiical interference with individual inmates' presentation of claims to the courts, Id. at 1123. In line of cases, this Court has "held that the First Amendment right to petition the government includes the right to file other civil actions in court that have a reasonable basis in law or fact." Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658, F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal ciations omitted). "This right ... forbids states from "errect{ing] barriers that impede the right of access of incarcerated 3 persons." John L. Adams, 969 F.2d 228, 235 (6th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added), Silva ve Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d at 1102. "[P]risoners also have a right to, protected by the First Amendment right to petition and the Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process, "to pursue legal redress for claims that have a reasonable basis in law or fact." Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 291 (citing Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1993)). Silva sup