WHERE THE CONNECTICUT DISTRICT-COURT -FAILED TO UTILIZE THE,"MAILBOX RULE", WITHIN PLAINTIFFS TIMELY SUBMISSION OF HIS ADMINISTRATIVE RE-MEDIES/EXHAUSTION . WHERE IT WAS IMPROPER FOR DEFENDENTS TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE/CATHOLIC BELIEFS. WHERE IT WAS IMPROPER FOR DEFENDENTS TO VIOLATE THE,(RLUIPA) ,IMPOSING A RELIGIOUS BURDEN OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE. WHERE IT WAS IMPROPER FOR DEFENDENTS TO VIOLATE THEIR OWN,(PROPERTY MATRIX ),CONFISCATING RELIGIOUS ARTICLES FROM PLAINTIFF THAT WAS ALLOWED TO RETAIN. WHERE IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE CONNECTICUT DISTRICT COURT TO RULE IN FAVOR OF DEFENDENTS ON SUMMARY JUDGEMENT,AND,FAILING TO UTILIZE THE,"MAILBOX RULE" ..WHERE IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSING THE APPELLANTS CASE WHILE PLAINTIFF ONLY MOTIONED FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENYING DUE PROCESS OF APPELLANT TO SUBMIT PRIMARY BRIEF/APPENDIX .

Whether the Connecticut district court improperly applied the 'mailbox rule' in dismissing the plaintiff's timely administrative remedies/exhaustion claim