At what point is the judiciary obliged to curtail efforts to procedurally bar inmate litigation and consider gross salient factors that are persuasive even considering PLRA and/or AEVPA?

Plaintiff contested the medical need and the cost of orthopaedic shoes he was prescribed by prison physician. The stipulation regarding the cost of the shoes was that if Inmate remained indigent for thirty (30) days the cost would be expunged. However, Plaintiff believed that the trust withdrawal signed by him would be transferred to a source which would allow the vendor of the ortho footwear to collect the cost even though Inmate Plaintiff was not permitted to utilize the footwear unless he signed the Form-193 Trust Withdrawal. Plaintiff did not want the ortho shoes. Instead he wanted a light-weight canvas shoe, inexpensive, such a shoe had been previously supplied Plaintiff wherein he signed, trust withdrawal for eight (8.00) dollars. Plaintiff believed coercion on the impetus of prison medical staff forcing Inmate to sign for stated cost of ortho shoes or go without requested relief.

Whether the syllable influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO): From the onset Plaintiff filed his action to content these corrupt action to the level of Racketeering practices. Upon reaching the federal court Plaintiff was ordered to file U.S.C. § 1983. Case No. 19-16393.

At what point does the judiciary have an obligation to curtail efforts to procedurally bar inmate litigation and consider gross salient factors that are persuasive even considering PLRA and/or AEDPA?