Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to directly review merits of decision of district judges that three judge court should be convened.

Whether prisoner had liberty interest to be free of disciplinary segregation uphold on second misbehavior report almost two later after original action was expunged in first disciplinary proceeding, and whether Plaintiff incarceration in the SHU solitary confinement for more than 11-years, and denied hygeene products and food in daily basis from 2/17/98 thru his released on 3/11/09 was ~typics harship violates the Eighth Amendment (Trop v. Dulles; 356 .U.S. 58, 101 [1958]), and that there was disputed question of facts as to whether he had received all process due.

Whether his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was placed in the more retrictive levle of prison long-term segregation for more than 11-years from 2/17/98 thru 3/11/09, and denied hygiene products and food in daily basis, was cruel and unusual punishment is sufficiently serious that he was denied the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. (Harris v. Miller, 818 F.3d 49, 65 (2d Cir. 2016); Encarnacion v. Goord, 15-2980, 2016 WL (2d Cir. 2016)).

Whether incarceration in the Segregation Housinh Unit ("SHU') for more than 11 years, and deprived of hygiene products and meals in daily basis was a typics harship was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, whether the district court failure to identified the untimely and unexhausted claims and the timely and exhausted claims and reaching the merits of the timely and exhausted claims deprived plaintiff of fair trial and Equal Protection of the Law.

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