any statutoriol or constitutional obligation related tothe protec2. it isnot the obligation of Dept. of corrections officials to vespond grievances and/orte take reasonable Measared on complained

3. is the Distrinct and appeals court dutyto potect inmates Fundlauentalrights?

4. it isnot a Failure to prtest and physicalassaults claind afactual to prison orficial deliberate indifference and gross aegligence?

5. is not physical assault in Kuowledge of prison officials a Fallure to protect, deliberate indio evnce and gos neglignce actionable causes For a clai,whenthey failed to act being aware of arisk of danger.?

Labeling hitu as a snitch?

7. Do Letters place prisonof ficials in notice of a situation, giving then the oppartunity to act in protectirg on inauate who write thre Lettens, since his grievanees has not being responded.

8.if prison offcaler Failed to rerpond grivances, orto act on grieved Situation or to respond letters. i ris not a Factualallegation?

Failed to considerinate Facteal allegations ulichwive uncontested where maate contended he war prevented Funthe exhaustion reguivement OF PL RA1 997 (e)(a), the District nd oppeal caunts in the case at bar Failedto opply iz, when this case is similar to the heein petitiner casl.

was park of a Task Foree in conjunction with Cetain prison officials in Cause or factual allegation?

petitioner relating o claits of exchaustion and duttes?

12.the oppeal caurt stated that, prison official Failueto respond gievances did not reliene inate ofhis obligation to File an appent whin grevance procedure pvided that inmate cauld file an opperif he don'trecive a response to a grevance in Bo days: the oppeal caurt inttis case is beay, Davis us Masor, Agular vs. Terrell, and Foulk us. charrier, listed the Di pcotn establishing a presedent?

13. what hindo ntectons) can an inate have ingeneal, and speciallgwhen thanks to hint alarge nmber of corrupteplayer were Cangit, but his

14. it is a serious physical indury, not once, but twice obtained an issue to iguore, specially whn the iusuries were pro duced by deliberate indifference, grossiegligenc, and willfull iscondut of prison officals that placed the muate life, health and Security in unecessary dauger?

15. it is not the respansability of prison offcials in auaduinistrative position to tahe serious the issue of heep the ideutity of an infornant in cnfidentiol and if Said informant idertity is revealed it is not therr dutyto frotect the TnMatte?

16 is Qualifiedimmunity a definse for the defrdants, whn defendauts wihin the defendants willFully and deliberatel failed to ptect an inyate wne ashed for prtection?

thank's to infonant inoate inforyation of corrypt actirities.

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the respondent's actions