Whether the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals violated a pro se prisoner's clearly established constitutional right of access to courts by disregarding his enumerated filings

No question identified. : contours of the right [violated are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates the right.”) The critical points in this case all have by definition been satisfied as result of enumerated filings wrongfully disregarded in the United States District Court for the State of Wyoming and United States Court of Appeals for the 10" Circuit. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1967) (prisoners have the right to petition the government for redress of Grievances, including a reasonable right of access to the courts). USAP10 No. 24-8051 >See above entitled case number(s) for referenced filings in these courts within the complaints docketed and filed for the record to be expanded by “factual” material enhancement according to the federal law and filed according to the rules of this court. Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, (9" Cir. 1992) (“[L]itigation necessarily requires some means of accurate duplication because the court and parties need to refer to the same documents. Photocopying is a reasonably sufficient and reliable means of providing the necessary copies of petitions, complaints, answers, motions, affidavits, exhibits memoranda and briefs, including attachments and appendices, material needed for discovery and investigation, including interrogatories and freedom of information requests.”) The Wyoming Department of Corrections has been engaging an obnoxious pattern of intentional retaliation to thwart my efforts to file this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. This filing is legitimate and all actions to arbitrarily dismiss all adjudicative facts presented for challenging municipality’s custom of absolute Judicial notice standard of review for the totality of the circumstances in appeal courts failing to execute with Ethical Jurisprudence Ratio Decidendi challenge of the Final Judgment, by pro se fact trier in findable issues of legal injuries presented in direct evidence in the documentation provided to United States District Court for The State of Wyoming. Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 463 (1“ Cir. 1975). cert. denied 425 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 1495, 47 L.Ed.2d 754 (1976) (an issue is “material” if it affects the outcome of litigation, and “genuine” -when on the record is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute... to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.) Procedure is required on petition for review of parole ineligibility Under W.S. 7-13-402(b) because of : administrative disciplinary conviction and physical impossibility created by defendants named in this case filed in lower courts. Verification has been provided from the submittal of the affirmative documentation in direct support for this review to find good cause.to grant this motion for extension on time to file Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Good Cause based on the clear violations of the constitution and protections which are inviolable.. Constitutional Article III direction provided by this court in prior instructional guidance for appealing from the United States Court of Appeals for the 10" Circuit. All three strikes pointed at issue of Judicial malice and this filing is of manifested necessity. Haines v. kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d. 652 (1972) (pro se litigants’ pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafied by lawyers; if a court can reasonably interpret pro se pleadings to state a cognizable claim on which litigant can could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence structure, or litigant’s unfamiliarity with pleading requirements: and unless it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff can prove no facts in support of his claim, which entitle him to relief, a complaint or motion should not be dismissed). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held