a) Petitioner questions the correctness of the Appeals Courts' access-to-the-courts cases as noted in Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 at n.9 (2002); as well as, as applied to the facts here and municipal liability.

b) Petitioner, amongst potential future plaintiffs, need clarification of municipal liability in backward-looking access-to-the-courts cases, as well as, as applied. Petitioner respectfully requests erudite and perspicacious review and a holding and dicta cementing the apparent lacuna between the Courts of Appeals and this Court regarding municipal liability and backward-looking access-to-the-courts claims.

c) Thereafter answering "b)" - Petitioner questions the correctness of the judgments of the District Court of Utah and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ' decisions, de novo. For example^ l) Did Plaintiff/Petitioner state a claim upon which relief may be granted? Harbury at 416. The District Court and Defendant both failed to meaningfully address Petitioner's Monell x Canton x Tuttle x Connickx Harbury (etc..) (municipal liability access claim) as it relates to Petitioner's State of Utah Constitutional right to a remedy (Section 1, Article ll) — the 10th Circuit declined to enter such a "morass;" and, 2) Should the opinions below be vacated, reversed and remanded, with leave to amend, and/or with instructions consistent with opinion?

access-to-the-courts