Anthony James Merrick v. Ryan Thornell, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, et al.

Mr.MenncK Ahcd proses officials Wd Mutated Vws Fvr^V AweMvuuaid- rusjnfc Vo trecewe ^obUcc&oAS of non-node uitacVi vhe Uwte (S<wv¥ had. QcexstdJsVf teocd-teGd* prison aSndcAs pokc^ Uicxs AacCakk^ UiYtonshioteoiaa.l under Tomer v.Safety » U&2. ihSi 7© The VWdh CincuddeterwwnecS Meerut-fa.dc’d “te bhou-s^hje ■seme poUcx^ 4lr«^ -found -fisxxaUn osYK^teLteacd voas -facially otrKXwxsfete'te or defehdiesyds lacked tec^Atvwate peroAoc^rod interest , K/lr. MerriclA-further cUkec^d 4hcd prxsoirx oPfvcXaAs h^d ex. doVf 4o p«x>vtd« Iiu-wk u>dh Abe Gswvxavx \gjls&{Jodwcicsd ctecAsvoAs so he^wcu^ ext<YA$< Vyvs Fvr&Y AvuevteLaevd- v^tis do £veedio'wi.e£ speedrx, C-lfc^ressicn eond peAAvcjAvftCj AhC x^servwsard ^ur redness c-V c^iex>csjnces AA<kj^ easencis-t Vus U^erUj wvferes^ o'Aci«.v--\V\e Ao^ process cloos'e Ahe Four4«e*,-Ux kjA8ev^UA£vdi> Tine ViunAta circbvV AconcK ■Mifte^' KAerriCk. -faded. Ao esWcVvsjr^ ex toasts •Q^rveUeF ttfWv' Uae dvsWicA <^urd dekerwi'wxed UeusxS V.CciS^, 5i8 0.^/3Hl provided no SVcJa doV^ emd mjo«vcWr« reX'e^ wjos wA ouaadiG&Ae • The Case th^s, presents Mne^Uouw\cj ^jje&Vuwns and osks Ahe crofM Ao rexiisvV t_eeJos m ^Ccvsc^j ojnckAc setse^e |V< CAroJiV, I. THE HlUTH CIRCUIT COUfCT OF APPEALS OECISttU. K CoHFUCTS \MvTHTX)RUe«2.M»SAFELM, H02 AHO CREATES A D006LE. SXAHDAfcb FdR PRO-bE PfUSOrteftS -THAT fcoES HtfT EXIST UUTH COOMSEU ? 2. does the g»omer.haaeut have a both tosopplm PRtsoHERs \UtTH Access to cokahom lauVSdoicial DECtStOrlS TC> GdUpLM UMTH DUE PROCESS /W *&O TWE PRISOH62 MAX EXERCISE His FIRST AMedDMEUT RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OP sPEBcH, EXPRESS Iot4 AHD PETITlOHlHGi THE GOMERMM.EUT R>R REDRESS oF Griexjamc.es!