1. Is the Sixth Circuit Courts narrow interpretation of this Courts holding in Bounds wrong
and denies Hill meaningful access to the Courts?

2. Is The Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections policy in place to give Hill
access to the courts, unconstitutional and denial of meaningful access to the courts, as
plan in place only provides Hill who has educational and comprehension issues his
whole life with adequate libraries staffed by untrained and inadequately supervisedthe
inmate clerks to help him use it?

3. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allow the burden of
meeting Court deadlines to be place Hill, when Hill is unschooled in the most basic
techniques of legal research or does not have the intellectual ability to utilize the law
libraries in The Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections institutions, and has
had to depend on the advice and assistance of the untrained and inadequately
supervised inmate clerks for his meaningful access to the courts?

Does the Sixth Circuit's narrow interpretation of Bounds v. Smith deny the petitioner meaningful access to the courts?