Whether prison officials violated a pro se prisoner's due process rights by denying access to legal documents and judicial decisions that impede his ability to exercise First Amendment rights and seek redress of grievances

Mr.MenncK Ahcd proses officials Wd Mutated Vws Fvr^V AweMvuuaidrusjnfc Vo trecewe ^obUcc&oAS of non-node uitacVi vhe Uwte (S<wv¥ had. QcexstdJsVf teocd-teGd* prison aSndcAs pokc^ Uicxs AacCakk^ UiYtonshioteoiaa.l under Tomer v.Safety » U&2. ihSi 7© The VWdh CincuddeterwwnecS Meerut-fa.dc ’d “te bhou-s^hje ■seme poUcx^ 4lr«^ -found -fisxxaUn osYK^teLteacd voas -facially otrKXwxsfete'te or defehdiesyds lacked tec^Atvwate peroAoc^rod interest , K/lr. MerriclA-further cUkec^d 4hcd prxsoirx oPfvcXaAs h^d ex. doVf 4o p«x>vtd« Iiu -wk u>dh Abe Gswvxavx \gjls&{Jodwcicsd ctecAsvoAs so he^wcu^ ext<YA$< Vyvs Fvr&Y AvuevteLaevd v^tis do £veedio'wi.e£ speedrx , C-lfc^ressicn eond peAAvcjAvftCj AhC x^servwsard ^ur redness c-V c^iex>csjnces AA<kj^ easencis-t Vus U^erUj wvferes^ o'Aci«.v--\V\e Ao^ process cloos'e Ahe Four4«e*\,-Ux kj*A8ev^UA£vdi> Tine ViunAta circbvV AconcK ■Mifte^' KAerriCk. -faded. Ao esWcVvsjr^ ex toasts •Q^rveUeF ttfWv' Uae dvsWicA <^urd dekerwi'wxed UeusxS V.CciS^, 5i8 0.^/3Hl provided no SVcJa doV^ emd mjo«vcWr« reX'e^ wjos wA ouaadiG&Ae • The Case th^s, presents Mne^Uou*w\cj ^jje&Vuwns and osks Ahe crofM Ao rexiisvV t_eeJos m ^Ccvsc^j ojnckAc setse^e |V\< CAroJiV , I. THE HlUTH CIRCUIT COUfCT OF APPEALS OECISttU. K CoHFUCTS H02 AHO CREATES A D006LE. SXAHDAfcb FdR PRO-bE PfUSOrteftS -THAT fcoES HtfT EXIST UUTH COOMSEU ? 2. does the g»omer .haaeut have a both tosopplm PRtsoHERs \UtTH Access to cokahom lauVS doicial DECtStOrlS TC> GdUpLM UMTH DUE PROCESS /W *&O TWE PRISOH62 MAX EXERCISE His FIRST AMedDMEUT RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OP sPEBcH , EXPRESS Io t4 AHD PETITlOHlHGi THE GOMERMM.EUT R>R REDRESS oF Griexjamc .es!