WHETHER OR NOT THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER ZBUSCS
Z284)U, 2D72 (FEROUP.-7))C), 8CA), 9CO)-) THE PLANTIFFHAD A RIGHT
HANE
TBOTHE AETIONS F A SINGLE ESTRICT JUDGE REVIEWED BY A "FULL ISTRICT COURT
BEFORE "FNAL JUDGMENT"AUD WAS THE PANTIF DENIED HIS REGHT TO THE COENING
F A THREE-JUDGE DESTRICT COURT AND A DERECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT?

② WHETHER 0RNOT UNDER 28USC 22O 23) 207FEOUP.(C),B,0)
A SINGLE DISTRICTJUDGE HAD AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE DESMISS AND WHETHER UNDER ZBUSCS
1291, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION ON APPEAL, TO ENTERTAIN THE ACTIONS ON THE
MERITS? IS A SUA SPOUTE AISMISSAL A "FNALJUAGMENT" UNDER ZBUSCEZZBHOY V.
FEARCUP-4I) (CONFGIOT)?

WHRRNOT UNDR U 9 C/99, THE "HREE-TRROVIION
F THE PRISON LETIGMTION REFORM ACT CAURA) 4ZUSCS 99TELO);ZBUSCS M9ISCG) IS UNCONSTLTUTIONIAL
"AS APPLED" WHERE IT EFFECTIVEL BARS A PROSE PRISONER LETIGINT PROCEEDING INFORMA PAUPERIS (SUSPECT CASSIFICATION-WEATH) HIS VESTED REOHT TO ACCESS TO THE COURTS ANA CONSTITUTES A RETROACTIVE LAW AND PENAL STATUTE?

FFICTALS DESCIPLINARY PRACTICE FF PLAENG A PESONER IN A "EMPTY CEL" WETH. JUSTHIS BOXERS
. TO COVER HIMSELF CNO "BASIC HUMAN NECESSTIES"), FOR AN MUEBE RULE INFRACTTOND, WHERE STATE
LAW AND STATE-WIDE REGULIONS (FSA 944D9UDC (3); FAC:33-GO:314, 6O1.BODUXC) DO NOT AUTHUXIZE
THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED FOR THE RULE DNFRACTION ALLEGEDLY VIOATED, PRTOR TO RECEIVING (A
ISPENARY REPORT CNOTICE ANA A HEARING ON THE MLEGTIONS COORTUNTY TO BE HEARA UNCONSTITUTTONAL?

WHETHER OR NOT UNDER 18USCS 241,371, 196IDB), 196ZCO) , THE AETIONS F ALL THE JUAGES

Whether the jurisdictional requirements under 28 USC §§ 1331, 1332, 1343, 1367, 2072, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were met, and whether the plaintiff had a right to the actions be reviewed by a 'full (score) court' before 'final judgment'