I. Whether the provision of the 28 U.S.C. 636 requires the district court judge to
prevent the assigned magistrate judge from issuing a report and recommendation
in order to avoid a de novo review of the case.

II. Whether Petitioner's Constitutional rights were clearly established under the
general rule of U.S. Constitution to be better protected while in segregation from
the mobs who had just violently attacked him the previous day, whether this
right was violated.

III. Whether the 8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution provide that a
Person should be subjected to double jeopardy, cruelly punished twice for the
Alleged prison rule violation.

IV. Whether the district court considered the law with a reasonable logic to the
Question long addressed by the Supreme Court in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519 for the violation of right while in segregation.

V. Whether the established law requires the district court judge to solve credibility
issues on motion for summary judgment, disregarding defendants' credibility
and perjury issues.

VI. Whether the district court considered the correct inquiry of defendants' state of
mind due to the fact that Petitioner claimed he was being deprived of right and
subjected to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

VII. Whether the Petitioner was not a suspect class of equal protection similarly
situated to another inmate who received better protection, separated from his
attackers while in segregation after being attacked by a group of gang members.

VIII. Whether the decision of the district court and cases cited by the Appellate
court to affirm conflicting with the prior decisions of same 8th Circuit and decisions
from other circuits.

IX. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Petitioner
appointment of Counsel under the facts of the case and Petitioner's Health
Condition.

X. Whether the district court abused its discretion denying petitioner supplemental
declaration of an Inmate who witnessed the attack in segregation and saw all
lieutenants involved.

XI. Whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling on discovery motions.

XII. Whether the inclusion and referencing of Petitioner's prior conviction case
number information is appropriate under Rule 403, Fed R. Evid. while petitioner's
credibility is not at issue.

XIII. Whether under 28 U.S.C 609.06 Petitioner had a constitutional duty to retreat
from the violent attack by 3 drunken Inmates of a group of mobs.

Whether the provision of the 28 U.S.C. 636 requires the district court judge to prevent the assigned magistrate judge from issuing a report and recommendation in order to avoid a de novo review of the case