Question not identified.

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Did the Ninth Circditand the drsermct Couct property apply all +he necessary elemenaes that apply +O theo petitioners 4¥Y U.8-C-Secrion 1933. jA&S FIA Clams? » pid the Ninth Circuit and the district court property conSyder the merit oF the urcu.S.c. | Seck1orn j4k3, bA8S,¢ 1S Clavms made by the perirvoner? »Oid the Ninth Circuitand the district court mmproperly apply State oF lmitations fo the UL U.g.cSeerion 1443, iAKG, + 14RWY +O OM ACHIiON that Wag Complete and preéent at the tme oF fhe Frleng? > Did the Ninth Circuitand the district codrt Imi pro pecly opp!4 the Eleventh Amendment Immunity provision +o the deFendants even , Sor actions odtside of thar Finetional eperations *>Drd the Ninth Ciretuit+ and the district court improper’) review Moatterg concerning State Jaw esta liShing the lability oF te AeFendants, even From a Congst+itdtional perspective according +o US-SdpremeCoudrt+ precedents? »>DOid the Ninth Ciccurt and the district Ccolrp_ improperly opply a Heck v. Humphrey analysts to the 42 U.S.C. Section 1984, 1988S, + IG thatthe petittoner did not raise? pid the Uineh Circuit and the district court overlook the actual injydry prerequsitre oF the PLRA a8 Applied +o the YVU-S-C. Section LARS 1498S FIARY that the petitioner did raise? *Oid the district coudr+ Unnecessari ly. requeét the petitioner amend tne COmptaing when there Wags merit +o the claims already made? ; > Did the Ninth Circuit and +ne district codrprmipro per ty review +he petitioners Fourteenth Amendment clams regarding State last that provides procedura| 6areg ards in order to protec+ ones liberty, and that a deprivation oF these procedural saregquords infringed on +he petitioners liberties? | a » Did the Minth Circdit and the district court improperly deny the petitiongr a preliminary rnydnetion? ~ ,