I. WHETHER THE HECK V. HUMPHREY 514 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) REQUIREMENT FOR STATE PRISONERS TO EXHAUST THE STATE COURT REMEDY WHEN APPLIES TO A SECTION 1983 FILED IN STATE COURT UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT'S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE UNDERLYING PENNSYLVANIA V. RITCHIE 460 U.S. 34, 58 (1987) RENDERS HECK, RITCHIE SECTION 1983, AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT ALL BOTH UNENFORCEABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE BOTH HECK AND RITCHIE REQUIRE THE EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDY

II. WHETHER THE HECK V. HUMPHREY, 514 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) REQUIREMENT FOR STATE PRISONERS TO EXHAUST THE STATE COURT REMEDY WHEN APPLIES TO A SECTION 1983 FILED IN STATE COURT UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT'S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE UNDERLYING PENNSYLVANIA V. RITCHIE 440 U.S. 34, 58 (1987) RENDERS MUHAMMAD V. CLOSE, 540 U.S. 749, 754-55 (2004) BOTH UNENFORCEABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE THE MUHAMMAD COURT HELD THAT HECK DON'T APPLY CHALLENGES FOR DON'T HAVE A BEARING ON CONVICTION OR SENTENCE

III. WHETHER STATE PRISONERS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM FOR ACCESS TO EVIDENCE VIA STATE COURT REMEDY IS A COGNIZABLE § 1983 CLAIM UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT'S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE UNDERLYING PENNSYLVANIA V. RITCHIE 400 U.S. 34, 58 (1987) WHEN STATE EMPLOYEES DEPRIVE STATE PRISONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF AN IN CAMERA DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL RITE FILES

Whether the Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) requirement for state prisoners to exhaust the state court remedy when applying to a section 1983 state court under the 14th Amendment's due process clause underlying Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 (1987) renders Heck, Ritchie, section 1983, and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment all both unenforceable and unconstitutional since both Heck and Ritchie requires the exhaustion of state court remedy