DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION WHEN IT VIEWED THE EVIDENCE AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER AND DENIED HIS RULE 56(d) MOTION, WITH RESPECT TO THE CENTRAL FACTS OF CASE, WHERE ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY REQUESTED WOULD SHOW DEFENDANTS WERE DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO HIS SAFETY? DID THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IMPROPERLY WEIGH EVIDENCE AND RESOLVE DISPUTED ISSUES IN FAVOR OF THE MOVING PARTY?

II.

BECAUSE THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FAILED TO MAKE PROPER DETERMINATION TO VIEWING THE EVIDENCE IN LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER THAT SUPPORTS AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION, PETITIONER PRESENTED ARGUMENTS IN REPLY BRIEF APPEALING SPECIAL NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTION, DEMO THAT IN WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED ON APPEALS THOUGH THE WAIVE INFRINGE ON HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. DID THE WAIVE ON APPEAL PRODUCE A PLAIN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE?

III.

DID THE COURT OF APPEALS FAIL TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS THAT MET THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON PETITIONER'S EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM, WHERE ARGUMENT WAS MADE PETITIONER WAS IMPROPERLY PLACED IN THE START NOW PROGRAM FOR PRISONERS DIAGNOSED WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS VIOLATE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BECAUSE THE RECORD AIDEN SHOW A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON HIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM? WAS THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REQUIRED TO GRANT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION?

Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim