1) Asdan"iis£ueaofGEdjrsi Impressi'en 5.fdingtlbisaCoBBt, does the "or Territory" clause of 4 2 USC § 19 8 3 and the related Civil Rights Statutes apply to the Federal Bureau of Prisons properties; utilizing the Federal Courts Territorial Jurisdiction ; Is the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Blunt previously determined that Federal Courts have Territorial Jurisdiction over Federal Bureau of Prisons properties; thus allowing a First Amendment Retaliation Claim filed under both Bivens and invoking 42 USC § 19B3 as well to go forward to trial and not violating the Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection of the Laws Constitutional Rights ?

2) Should the above question be answered in the negative, does the Boule decision of this Court denying First Amendment claims of Retaliation in Bivens Actions violate the Petitioner's Four teenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Laws when a State prisoner is able to sue against a jailer for First Amend ment Retaliation regarding. Redress of- Grievances but Federal Prisoners do not have the same civil rights.?

3) Did the lower courts err by not recognizing the "or Territory" Clause portion of 42 USC § 1983, which was specifically pointed o ut to them by the.Pro Se Petitioner and their insistance that vertical!stare decisis was the proper decision in the case below ?

Does the 'or Territory' clause of 42 USC § 1983 apply to Federal Bureau of Prisons properties?