DID THE COURT OF APPEOLS ERTED IN NOT REVIEWING
by holD Me to a hiqhad
THE /OWER COURT DECESSIOS
8SFAMdARD OF A SRD SE
SAMdAR OF LAW ThEN THE
PlAilTiff.?

2)
DECRETARA OF ThE D.P.S.C.S. STEPhEN T. MOYER
AS
DEFENdENT JUSTiFyE, dISNISSINq A STATE
SRISONER
A
Givils Right comPlault cuden H2Ules 8 1983
FOR
BA:TUE OO StAtE A CLAIM. ThE L.S.SUPRIME COUeT MUST
OF ThE ComPlnint.?

WAS THE UNITED STOTE COUET OF APPEDS dECESSION tO
3)
dISMiSs A I983 CiViI SUit FOR IAURE tO STATE
CIAIM ERRONEOUS BECAUSE IT iS IN DIRECT CONFTCT
W:Th thE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR thE Sth CRCUCt
WhO REVERSEd AMD REMANdED WITh INStRUCTONES tO
REINSTATE thE COMPLAINT (516F.2d 93M 50 LEDZD
251,429US.97 ESTE1E V. GAMblE.?

WAS ThE PlAiNTiff Eighth
7110115-0411515
AMENDMENT
Violated
FROM
by H-uuit
STAfF
MCI-J
TREFUsed tO
At
who
ESCORt ME
to MEd.eol K-HosP.tal
AS ORCEREO
b4
TAFt.7
Doctor
BRENdA HAll
DPSCS
STEPhEN T. MOYER SECRETARY OF
ThE
5)
T3
DIRECtOR
ANd Put PIACE
Policils
PROCEEDURES
AM
MCI-J
7
IN CHARGE
D.O.C. STAFF At
AND IS hE
OFOR thIER ACTIONS thAT dENIEd ME ACCESS
liable
TO MECICA! FOR A SERiOUS MEDICAl NEEd
AFtER A
8)
ATTAch (9)
SEE

PLAN WAS PU+ IN PLOCE
TREAIMENT
by M CTJ
DOCtOR BREUdO HAl FOR MRSA.?

(6) DId ThE U.S, COORT OF APPED
FOR ThE
FOURTh
LmUD
APPLY REVIED, OR EXAMiNE,
ESTElls V. GamblE
FiFth CRCIT
IiM ThE
PP. I4 ThE HAINES TEST [ 429 US 1I]
AND
42945.1127?

(7) WAS ThE EiTiONER
JBUAN WATKINS Eiqtth
AMENdMEnt oF thE Ul.S

Did the court of appeals err in not reviewing the lower court's decision by finding that the petitioner lacked standing to appeal