ebsequent deprivation of e Petitioner's legal mal reference materils anddocuments unti Sept.29 20, s vell as depriving him of access to envelopes, paper, and access to the courts bur him the availabiity to i for an Appe to the Eghh Cirit de to the State dirct interence in his abiity to ime fi?

was transferred to cnother facility seperat from that of the witnesses, whom has been within sdlitary confinement for the entire time and hus no bay to take depusitions from te yopusite purty, obtain document

Question Thre: Did the UsDc Distof Minestu err in its use oP Summary Judgment by wling on a case that is entirely based upen chat is credibility determinations that are to be made by a ery, and instead ruled most Favorable to the Moving party rather than the Non-Moring purty, even when ich requires Surgery to Corret?

Did the retaliatory transfer from one facility to another violate the petitioner's due process rights?