I. Did Phe OmFed SPedes DisPricV CourV Deprive.d
The. PeAvPiooer Access ToTbe. Coords and Id
Siofe a Claim When il Departed From The
Accepted and Usual Coof.se of Judicial
Proceedings And
Federal Lcxoj Questions.VJcm ThoVs Conflict V)i-VK m

Z. D id \ he. UaUeA SdcxVes \hsdr icl CourF Deprwed
The Pehfoner of Vfs Procedural and Sobsl-anWe
Due. Process When 5 failed do ^wre Proper Hoiicc
And Conclusion, Facfs and LaO onTWe. Flen-U
Contrary To federal Lauj , The Consf (ul
Previous Rulings This Courf

5 Ancona is Wilhou-1 AuthorTj To toKercise
TVs durisdicfon over \he PeTTioner because
is ProhibiUd from, VWnng Slaves V)hixl\
Shaf be SeHled ,B-j This CourV.and/on

Arizona

<4. The UnlaoJlvjl CommiHmcnV do \ncar ceraVton
in Violodi onoP The PoorPh of The PefVioner
Amen dm end's Doe Process Clause. And Vineuoas
Prosecufed Vidhood ProWadW Apphcomd
Cause, VvolaVio^ Am. Cons^ ArfTT Section SO,

5. C lLo\VnGM AN INidlVl 'cduAl ls«.o dcpRANied oTVllS
TRSEdoM bTlbe AulhoRlTies »n anvn 6^ 'iTjca^
WAT ANdPb subTeCfedTo ^uesTtofm^r^e
-pRhliLe^e A£A*NSV6elT-A-NCR\M\ NAUoN \e>
3eopAR &\ 2edtoas

Did the United States District Court deprived the petitioner access to the courts and to state a claim?