Whether requiring an indigent, self-represented plaintiff to post a mandatory medical tribunal bond as a condition for access to a malpractice trial violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment

1. Whether requiring an indigent, self-represented plaintiff to post a mandatory medical tribunal bond as a condition for access to a malpractice trial—without any waiver or reduction —violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. Whether the dismissal of civil rights and malpractice claims for failure to comply with a procedural rule (Massachusetts Rule 9A), without consideration of pro se status and medical urgency, violates an individual ’s constitutional right to access the courts. OPINION BELOW The decision of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts is unreported but is available as a summary decision dated December 13, 2023, under Case No. 22-P-1123. The application for further appellate review was denied on January 16,2025. JURISDICTION The judgment of the Appeals Court was entered on December 13, 2023. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied further appellate review on January 16, 2025. Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”