1. Has California 's justice system forgotten what
was taught by this Court 's holding in Wilson v. Seiter
[501 U.S. 294 (1991)]. (Regarding 8th Amendment
inquiries requiring only minimal showing of
"...specific deprivation of single human need must
exist. .,") as it allowed its department officials to
deprive prisoners of manifold necessities for months?

2. By issuing a summary denial, did the state fail to
accord petitioner 's federal constitutionally
guaranteed rights in this matter?

3. Did the state courts violate their Article 6 oath by
their failure to resolve petitioner 's meritorious
claims?

4. Does the 14th Amendment due process demand
non-silent regulations regarding lockdown, a key
function within the operation of a state prison?

5. In light of petitioner 's liberty interest being at
stake, should that require CDCR 's rule making body
to draft a regulation governing usages of lockdown
procedures to explain for: 1) the cause for initiation
of the lockdown, 2) duties during and after a
lockdown and 3) key considerations overall that
would facilitate improvements in the determinative
process, thereby avoiding any future occurrences of harm
caused by indiscretions."!

6. Did the 9th circuit court of appeals wrongly decide
Norwood v. Vance as it may relate to Petitioner 's habeas
claims of being denied adequate outdoor exercise?

7. Should this Court more often question the wisdom
behind Correction 's Agencies unconstitutional
decisions . ., thus reviving speculation into age old
deference for modern day, high-tech complications?

8. Should widespread judicial standards be
established because of the enormous weight of Civil
Rights violations encompassed inside arbitrarily
determined, month(s) long lockdown situations?

9. Is the state 's compulsive use of sub silentio
designed to prevent Federal Authority from
acquiring a thorough view of material issues —the
prerequisite for a full quorum discussion?

10. Should the initiating of Lockdowns exceeding 72
hours become a decision solely entrusted to the
prison 's nearest Superior Court having experience in
handling judgments of such astounding consequence?

11. Does this example of the abusive usage of
lockdown by a Warden demonstrated below, pose a
serious enough risk to prisoner 's health —pro tanto it
affects all inmates in a facility —to generate concern
by this court for the instant cause?

12. Despite petitioner 's innovative proposal, is this
yet another example of California turning a dull
heart to another great way to get on the fast track
towards lasting improvements and soften the impact
of some of the more alarming abuses that distract
focus away from attempting to remedy a nearly
dysfunctional system already burdened down by the
weight of overcrowding?

13. Does the substance of this matter expose
California 's prison system as routinely creating
overly restrictive customs —those founded upon pre-
textual goals that violate conditions precedent when
the "safety and security " smokescreen is being
announced much too often?

14. Did the California Supreme Court deliberately
refuse to acknowledge correspondence from
Certiorari petitioner because it

Has California's justice system forgotten what was taught by this Court's holding in Wilson v. Seiter