Wo^> prisoners consbKjtioH <\\ c^<A sWoforj/ rty 'hf fo P^j/jioi^
(edic^ous -Troe^jomj \Ziola.j<z.d ojkc/J jj e_ District court "
AismYSSed Kb u^c. 3 /au) Suit aj0cx\(^t~ guards
fof VaAwv^ Ao comp\y Ui4k Ak*- courts orcWr jo or\At.r^ ce
£)<2.pc\rVl^\OAV of CorrocViOAS (A |CccteA Heal4k ScT <jz^Jjir\^ (j HfnAocte-el
to //ie~ clangs /n tho. uric/cfU^ suit ?
l^WAb^r cxSKs 4k vs court" jo d^c/Jt. /f /)i$ right do petti orJ
OhAef Ih. f\cyb cu^d fo^rteeo/A A/^ ca/A mervT uj cxS V (0 i hVed
vjkoW fho- >\$4fjd " Court" ordered petijioncf ju . Conscsd fb
an open (Z/UcleAy unspecified De^>artM6V/ o-f Corf&o'itonS
v heedtk SCfeeJin^ //eiO d(Smi S$e-d //e Suit cjAcV pe/i4icmef
C(Tmp\y uJ(jk /Ac. order. /V vf/ea|4k
cjccs requested f>/r /Ae cJefeA/dant of /Ac. /<s;uJ
c\ onfe\<x\ed At> Akc. claims-7b bid hot ao^fee*
Scrcejtvr\oj -jtot
So ib 4ke suit, K\ C\1^
SUf/ (ffolctt-
dor /Ae. firs/ A^ovcif^CA/f(\j^d Joi o\id4ke- dbrWSSnl of jh<z- Au>
pcf\\\0!Aers r^\\0)\ous freedoms
0,wc\ iA L 0 X 4 fV .UK

Was prisoners constitutional and statutory right to petition and religious freedoms violated when the district court dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit against jail guards for refusing to comply with the court's order to undergo a Department of Corrections directed 'health screening' unrelated to the claims in the underlying suit?