Robert Ryan Snyder v. California

Has California’s justice system forgotten what was taught by this Court’s holding in Wilson v. Seiter [501 U.S. 294 (1991)]. (Regarding 8th Amendment inquiries requiring only minimal showing of “...specific deprivation of single human need must exist..,”) as it allowed its department officials to deprive prisoners of manifold necessities for months?

By issuing a summary denial, did the state fail to accord petitioner’s federal constitutionally guaranteed rights in this matter?

Did the state courts violate their Article 6 oath by their failure to resolve petitioner’s meritorious claims?

Does the 14th Amendment due process demand non-silent regulations regarding lockdown, a key function within the operation of a state prison?

In light of petitioner’s liberty interest being at stake, should that require CDCR’s rule making body to draft a regulation governing usages of lockdown procedures to explain for: 1) the cause for initiation of the lockdown, 2) duties during and after a lockdown and 3) key considerations overall that would facilitate improvements in the determinative "! process, thereby avoiding any future occurrences of harm caused by indiscretions.