Anthony E. Ntamere v. Amerihealth Administrators, Inc., et al.

1 I. Cause of Action as Property Right Under the Fourteenth Amendment Whether a state-created statutory right to file discrimination charges and receive notice of their disposition, which constitutes a cause of action recognized as a property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment as discussed in Logan u. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, protect against intentional interference by federal and state officials—such as overriding EEOC regulations, misfiling charges, or withholding required notices—that deprive claimants of access to local adjudication and judicial review, thereby violating procedural due process and the protections of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, especially when such actions result in the exclusion of similarly situated individuals from statutory grievance processes and undermine the constitutional requirement that all such individuals be treated equally II. Color of Law and Federal-State Collusion - Whether, consistent with the pleading standards articulated in Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, and Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, and the federal-state actor analysis set forth in Cabrera v. Martin, 973 F.2d 735, 742—43, a plaintiff states a claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985—and establishes the necessary “symbiotic relationship” for federal officials to be considered state actors—by alleging that federal and state officials conspired to intentionally 1 To prevent a later improvidently granted dismissal, I have listed these numerous questions to secure my right to jury trial. See Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla., 145 S. Ct. 2058 (2025)