(s).Th&. tovWfy1l<?&37&* petitioner SeeX to
YtfUMh) led to kt$ prosecuti'cm *

(n. Petitioner did exhausted his Steste- jtertedieS
a£ eefyuYed in hJiS QrirdKai Co&JL S>uiT hto
(p3-cF~oo *

(3). Petitioner CoM httna Os dalrt afyuht the. tke. City cHp Tajyvpa- twice. Dept*) u^der the.
omStYuxtion of the. Quit oS o petition for
Habeas hetief t

00. The. ctYuuterred ih finding petitioner dodm frivolous order X2 u.»5> * c. s»/^f 5 (£XW©)W> denies
ledve. ft proceed ) a-nd dismisses the- appeal*

(S). TK.C. lotoeY Courts fdlonstfe yuMl that if the. relief Y&juested under Seaton K83
ufatild undermine, & prisoners f*mi&'treatthe-tJcm a& a, petition forihetiht
tf hctieuS corpus*

(k>* the. torler courts/m conflicts iMfhe gash*
fix rLrk \l.6». pardonS pored Bd*,HI5 fiXdb3b;
b3<? ()ithcir*it cto')*

0)* Section J<?83 doCS hpfccritaih a* Statute, of
Limitations * He ditihcti &&eKs damages „

Whether the petitioner can bring a claim against the government under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional criminal prosecution, despite the petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies