Question 1:
Where the District Court has repeatedly refused to address or
adjudicate claims raised by a party, in this and other cases filed
by Missouri Prisoner's alleging deprivation of property pursuant to
and established state procedure, should this Court issue a writ of
mandamus directing the District Court to adjudicate the unresolved
issues, or explain why the adjudication was deemed unnecessary to
the disposition of the case.
The unresolved issues set forth in the Complaint are:
That Petitioner is being denied the use of the established
adjudicatory procedures set forth in the Missouri Administrative
Procedure Act (MAPA) Chapter 536, RSMo. Section §§ 536.010 - .150,
RSMo, relating to deprivations of personal property, by the Missouri
Department of Corrections (MDoC), pursuant to an established state
procedure that denys due process.
In Logan V. Zimmerman Brush Co.,102 S.Ct. 1148, 1154-55 (1982),
this Court held that the right to use state adjudicatory procedures
is a constitutionally protected property interest. (Appendix F,
A9-11, A21-22, Claim II).
That the violation of Petitioners' constitutional rights
and permanent deprivation of his authorized personal property, in
which he has a vested right to present and future enjoyment, was
pursuant to an established state procedure that failed to provide
notice of prohibited conduct. MDOC Policy, Rules of Conduct, Rule
24.5 "Altering any item in an unauthorized manner", standing alone
is meaningless or vague and would deny due process; and) that
the violation of Petitioners' Constitutional rights and permanent
deprivation of his authorized personal property, was not random or
unauthorized but rather pursuant to an official prison disciplinary
proceeding at which Petitioner was denied due process. (Appendix F,
Al2-19, A21 - Claim III).
When an established procedure or a foreseeable consequence of
such procedure causes the loss, an adequate post-deprivation remedy
is of no consequence, and the focus is solely on the process afforded
by the established procedure. Logan V. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S.
at 435-36.

Question 2:
Where the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
denied Petitioners Motion for the Appointment of the United States
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as Amucis Curiae to
investigate this matter and submit a brief or report to that court
with respect the the District Court's repeated refusal to address
or adjudicate, in this and other cases, the calim that Missouri
Prisoners were being denied the use of the established adjudicatory
procedures, by the Missouri Deaprtment of Corrections, did the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit shirk its duty to
protect the rights of Missouri Prisoners and supervise the lower
court, should this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Court of Appeals to explain why the matter was deemed unnecessary
to the adjudication of the case. (Appendix 0 & P, A116-121).

Question 3:
Where the complaint asserts direct constitutional rights
violations, that a state statute is unconstitutional and denys
access to the internal administrative appeals procedure and access
to the state court for judicial review, in violation of Peritioner's
rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to

Where the District Court has repeatedly refused to address or adjudicate claims raised by a party, in this and other cases filed by Missouri Prisoner's alleging deprivation of property pursuant to and established state procedure, should this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to adjudicate the unresolved issues, or explain why the adjudication was deemed unnecessary to the disposition of the case