In Re Christopher Gary Baylor

In this satellite litigation challenging conduct by State officials acting under color of law, it is well established that this Court may review, including when the subsequent act which is challenged has dire consequences due to the court’s inability to conduct appeals in accordance with reasonable procedural rules, “extraordinary”. This Court authorized itself in Neitzke, holding that “close questions of federal law, including claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, dismissed] for failure to state a claim. . . have been substantial enough to warrant this Court's granting review. . . to resolve them”. Even though this Court separately authorized review under Certiorari, no adequate means other than by mandamus exists to compel the appellate court to provide Petitioner with a meaningful appeal. If ignored here, Due Process is forever lost. The question presented here is: Does a non-prisoner, indigent, pro se litigant to a Section 1983 claim who initially proceeds In Forma Pauperis but later pays for his appeal, lose the same right of access to court procedures, the same rights as represented parties, the right to be heard on appeal by submission of brief, merely because dismissal by the district court was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b), which negates the adversarial process, allows the court to act as an advocate for absent defendants, leaving only one party to a case and appeal — equate to a lack of Due Process, Equal Protection and chilling of Free Speech?