Did ThE E/EVENTh CIRCIRt COURt OF AppEAl, CASE NOMbER: 18. 1O9O5 ViOlAtE ThE PEtitiONER's CONstituFiONAl Right UndER AMEndrEt 5. 14. OF ThE UnitEd-StAtEs ConsTitutiON, TO 'His ApPEA/:*

(1. Withut Fiest Gning Him Any TypE OF Waeving, ThAt FAilURE To FilE A FIAHCIAl StAHEMENt 8F HiS PRISON Bnk Account Would REsult In Dispissal And

(). Withocot Ruling An His Timely Filkd "Moton For DeCnetRy TadgmEnt..." ChAllerqNg ThE CorstitutionAlity OF ThE "PRSN LitigAtON REFRN Act " PASSEd By CoNgRESS, That It DOEs Not Apply To HiM to His AppEAl, BECUE It Was Not CongRess" Fitent That It Would Apply To StatE And FEDERAl PRISOMERS WhO Sought OhER Legal Civil Actioies Thats Not AgAIst "PRISon ConCitIOoN "DR "PerSON OfFICIAls.

COHRESs Intont When Enacting The Pisor Litigation REFRM Act Jnto hAW, wAs To Stap All ThE Frivolous hAW Suit BEng Filkd AGAISt PRISONS ANC PRISON OFfICAls FOR Any And EbERything UAdER ThE Sive.

This AppEnl StEns Fean A BAuKeupty AduERSAEy PeOECig PeISon Conditions OR OFficials, As CongRest Papn

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments were violated by the dismissal of his appeal