1. Whether the Precedent of Placing Nesiifying, medical evidence in the Summary Record Showing O * aeke' mental ef Peck" Places an Unrealis-hic exfectahion On Prisoners', and dees sod Precedent deviate From stelle V, Gamble and acme, Scennan 2

2. Whether the Lower Courts' erred by not considering Fabthoner's evidence, in the. Summos4 record » as te Shousedl. a geaving (Sue oF material fer?

3. Whether as of now, in the "evelviing Standards of decency) has the Petitioner Stated a Vaild cloim under Estelle and fame 2

4. Whekher the EXGHTH craUET erred in Fadllowing MokonsS': ApPointmants * for Counsel. 4 Cook Aprevated Medical EX perk, Walter Depo sitions 4 and PeXikionerS Second Moon Compelling Discovery ?

Whether the Precedent of Placing Nesifyire, medical evidence in the Summary Record 5 Showing Oo * aeke' mental ef Peck' Places an Unrealis-hic exfectahion On Prisoners'