Benjamin R. Schwarz v. Erwin Meinberg, et al.
1. Is there a federal right, under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for a federal prison inmate to sue prison officers whom he alleges have subjected him to grossly unsanitary conditions of confinement, in light of the Court's decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843 (2017), because such a claim does not present a new Bivens context and is not different in any meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by the Court, viz., Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 19 (1980)?
2. Is there a federal right, under the U.S. Constitution and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for a federal prison inmate to sue prison officers whom he alleges have denied him consideration for a lower security classification -- and hence eligibility for prison camp placement -- based solely on his Canadian citizenship, thus a national origin discrimination claim, in light of the Court's decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843 (2017), because such a claim does not present a new Bivens context and is not different in any meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by the Court, viz., Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 248-49 (1970); Univ. of Texas v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372 (1971)?
3. Is there a federal right, under the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for a federal prison inmate to sue prison officers whom he alleges refused to follow the Federal Bureau of Prison's own, published administrative grievance appeal process, when their refusal results in the inmate ultimately being locked out of court, for failure to exhaust, in light of the Court's decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843 (2017), viz., Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-15, 415 n. 12 (2002)?
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in dismissing petitioner's civil rights claims for lack of standing