Whether the Tenth Circuit erred by failing to address jurisdictional thresholds before permitting qualified immunity and denying access to courts while incarcerated

STIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals err by failing to address threshold State v. 'Roman Serpik LLC CROMAN SERPIK ”),, Beckham County Okla. District before permitting Respondents to invoke “qualified immunity, ” in contravention of this CdtoShf fetjttiiesieist th« reached (Steel Co. v. Cilfeens fee a Better Eav ’t, S23 US. 83 (1388))? Access to Courts While Incarcerated* 2~ Amendments —specifically, the right to speak, to access the courts, and to enjoy restricted to one hour per week of law-library access pursuant to ex parte judicial ordfiHte; togttafifiy wtef&aa electronic law library was fully operational? and where these restrictions directly p$eyfe^<RftiMb»8t Abto (a) m&y b^mdtot Ms pleadtogb to S&pSk y. Weedon, Nos. 23-cv*0988-JD and 23*cv-1030*JD (WJX Okla) following the district Eeteffity ix to 4»aa<. afiflCb) ptotiifit wttofi practice to Beckham County Case CV-23 ’40 and Custer County Case No. SC-23* dismissal < eitotos ^dptojudiftb —^to^asy to S^&, 43© US. 817 (ISM Mtn&as&M. 488 US. 471 (1©M. Judicial Bias and l^charactorization* 3. Did tM Mw emaeto mwssSMb by Petitioner as a “sovereign citizen 9’ in order to dismiss jurisdictional and Petitioner ’s right to define his own legal identity and to be heard on legitimate .to with y. A 2! 5SS ILS. 868 (2009), and Wsferv. 436 U.S. 478 (1878)? i