Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Dewey Steven Terry, Petitioner v. Phillip Earley, et al.

NO.

OWGTNAL

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Dewey Steven Terry

-

PETITIONER

VS.

California Prison Industry Authority (CAL-NA)

Philip Earley,

Gary Loredo,

Jeremy Young, and

Joe Dobie.

--

RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Ninth Circuit United States Court ofAppeals

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Dewey Steven Terry, CDC # D-08191

CSP San Quentin, Four North 25 Low

San Quentin, CA 94974

No Phone Number

1

Questions Presented

Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 'error' when the court

concluded that Petitioner's First & Fourteenth Amendment Right

was not violated during the course of Settlement Negotiations

under Uforma (Shelby Bus. Forms, Inc. vs. NLRB, 111 F.3d 1284

(6t1 Cir. 1997) and 5 U.S.C.S. 2302 (b) (8) (A) when the evidence

is proved to show the facts of the threats made in Settlement

Negotiations with Respondent?

Did The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 'error' in overlooking or

misinterpreted the preponderance of evidence of the Settlement

Offer, to terminate Petitioner after payment on a date selected by

Respondent's under (United States vs. Prewitt, 34 F.3d 436, 439,

(7th

Cir. 1994); and 5 US.C.S. 2302 (b) (6) does it shield

respondent's based on the threats of retaliation of employment

during litigation and Settlement Negotiations in the November

2015 Settlement Offer?

II

2

e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONSBELOW ........................................................................................................

JURISDICTION...................................................................................................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................................

a

STATEMENTOF THE CASE ............................................................................................ 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..........................................................................

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... lk

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Table of Authorities

Pages

Citation Name and Number

2, 5, 12

Unforma-Shelby Bus. Forms, Inc. vs. NLBR, 111 F.3d 1284 (6tI Cir. 1997);

2, 5,

United States vs. Prewitt, 34 F.3d 436, 439 (7th Cir. 1994)

4

Exhibit -1 Page's 1 & 2;

Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964;

5

Vulcan Hart Corp. [St. Louis Div.] vs. NLRB, 718 F.2 269, 277 (8th Cir. 1983);

Michigan Precision Indus. Inc. 223 NLRB 892, 893 (1976);

5 U.S.C.S. 2302 (b) (8) (A) and (b) (6);

29 U.S.C.S. 158 (a) (1) and (a) (3);

Evidence Rule 901 (a) (b) (1) and 902 (4);

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1176-77;

Portsmouth Square, Inc. vs. S' holders Protective Comm. 770 F.2d 866, 8691

(91h

Cir. 1985);

McDonnell Douglas Crop. vs. Green, 411 US 792, 802-04, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36

L. Ed. 2d. 668 (1973);

8

Smith vs. US 561 F.3d 1090, 1094, 1105 (101h Cir. 2009);

Wallis vs. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 1995);

Powell vs. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (1 11h Cir. 1990);

Occoquean vs. Barry, 717 F.Supp. 854, 866 (D.D.C. 1989);

81 10, 113

Gonyer vs. McDonald, 874 F.Supp. 464, 466-67 (D. Mass. 1995);

9

Wallis vs. Baldwin, 70 F.3d at 1075, & 1077)

11

Inmates of Occoquean vs. Barry, 717 F.Supp. 854, 866 (D.D.C. 1989);

Herman vs. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 663-65 (51h Cir. 2001);

le

V

If

)

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to

review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

1>4. For caes from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears

at Appendix

the petition and is

Pc

to

II] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

14 is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at

Appendix ..c.

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

'14 is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the meri

ts appears at.

Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

II] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or;

[ ] is unpublished.

-

The opinion of the

appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

I reported at

; or,

] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

] is unpublished.

1.

court

to

V

JURISDICTION

f4 For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my

case

was 4 -15 — 2 0 1 9

[] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

>cj A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States

Court of

Appeals on the following date: 4 13 - ô I

and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

-

,

'

[] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

(date) on

(date)

in Application No. _A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(

1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

and a copr of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.

A_______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. 1257(

a).

§

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Petitioner Terry believes that the Court has overlooked or

misinterpreted the preponderance of evidence that Petitioner Terry was exposed to

asbestos and lead from pipe insulation that was inhaled and did cause Petitioner

Terry pneumonia lung infection, the fibers that was released into the air from May

and June of 2012 in the CAL-PIA Mattress Factory at San Quentin State Prison.

Petitioner Terry, request for Judicial Notice to address Petitioner issues

regarding the Respondent's Phillip Early, Gary Loredo, Jeremy Young and Joe

Dobie also Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PTA) and the attorney's on the behalf

of all Respondent's, who are not employed by the Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, but who are assigned to or engaged in work at San Quentin State

Prison facility, must observe all policy, procedure, rules, regulations, including

California Department of Corrections Operations Manual, and all Department of

Personnel Administration Laws and Regulation, with Title 15, and all Health and

Safety Requirements

-

including Title 8, and the Policies and Procedures of (CAL-

PTA) to ensure (CAL-PIA) staff is familiar with the provision of these and other

references.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has a stringent

adherence policy governing the conduct of employees for all California State

Prisons and "failure to do so may lead to exclusion" from department facilities; all

Respondent's Phillip Earley, Gary Loredo, Jeremy Young and Joe Dobie also

Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PIA) are under the Department of Corrections &

Rehabilitation jurisdiction, state and federal law.

The Respondent's engaged in retaliation in a Settlement Conference against

Petitioner and deprivation accrued when attorney for Respondent's and the

representative of Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PTA) did not comply with its

obligations under the Settlement Agreement that laid out specific regulations,

policy procedure and ethical and professional standard to fully execute

Respondent's and the representative of (CAL-PIA) obligations under the

Settlement Agreement; to achieve a global settlement that affords Petitioner Terry,

with appropriate relief.

1) However the Respondent's and representative to (CAL-PIA) decline to

participate and engaged in vindictive retaliatory behavior against Petitioner

Terry for bringing a legal civil suit action

-

thereby violating Petitioner's

constitutional right under the First, Eight and Fourteenth Amendment, under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits the firing of

Petitioner as a (CAL-PIA) employee in retaliation for Petitioner's opposition

to discriminatory practices or investigation;

2) It is unlawful discriminatory practice for any Prison Industry Authority

(CAL-PIA) Respondent's:

Phillip Earley

-

Lead Manager,

Gary Loredo Supervisor II,

-

Jeremy Young

(d)Joe Dobie

-

-

Immediate Supervisor, and

Immediate Supervisor,

As employer to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against

Petitioner, because he has opposed the discussion in the Settlement

Conference with all attorneys for Respondent's and (CAL-PIA), regarding

Petitioner employment by the Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PIA) at San

Quentin State Prison will be terminated after payment and at a date set by

(CAL-PIA) REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.

3) A letter from Attorney at Law, Nancy E. Hudgins (see exhibit 1) page 1 & 2

dated June 15, 2017, stated numerous times of reprisal against Petitioner and

has not stop;

II

I

1

J

4) (CAL-PTA) and the attorneys for the Respondent's engaged in telling

Petitioner to not apply for a Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PIA) job in the

future for employment at any (CAL-PIA) location and that they could reject

Petitioner application if the Petitioner does apply. Furthermore, (CAL-PIA)

may terminate any employment Petitioner might later obtain with the

Business. Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PIA)

The threats made in the Settlement Negotiations were admissible, under Rule

408; it is inapplicable when the claim is based upon a wrong that is committed

during the course of Settlement Negotiations. (See Uforma Shelby Bus. Forms,

Inc. v. NLBR, 111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir. 1997), United States v. Prewitt, 34 F.3d 436,

439 (7th Cir. 1994), and 5 U.S.C.S. 2302 (b) (8) (A) with (b) (6) under rule 408 it

-

does not exclude evidence the employers (CAL-PTA) and the attorney for

Respondent's introduce threats to retaliate during November 2015, settlement

Negotiations, it threats of retaliation does not shield the Respondent's Phillip

Earley; Gary Loredo; Jeremy Young; Joe Dobie and Prison Industry Authority

(CAL-PIA) from liability, under 29 U.S.C.S. 158 (a) (1) and (a)(3) the treat is the

actionable wrong (See Vulcan Hart Corp. (St. Louis Div.)v. NLRB, 718 F.2d 269,

277 (8th Cir. 1983) and Michigan Precision Indus. Inc. 223 N.L.R.B. 892, 893

(1976) against Petitioner for the right guaranteed by the First Amendment is the

right to petition the government for a redress of a constitutional right, to stop all

retaliation against Petitioner.

Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PTA) Head Office ordered Supervisor Ron

Glass, to tell Petitioner that Ron Glass was ordered by High-level (CAL-PTA)

Prison Industries Administrator's lead manager, to have Petitioner remove from

Prison Industry Authority complex, at San Quentin Prison, also plaintiff Evert

Spell v. Smith, 13-4102-EMC, and Norman Hirscher v. Smith 14-0340-FMC was

told by Supervisor Pat Griffin, PIA is removing you at this time and put on a

(Hold-Out list).

5

Petitioner then requested for interview to lead manager, Andrew Howell,

and asks? "I am a PIA employee

-

why am I not permitted to my work

assignment"? In Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PIA)

Lead Manager Andrew Howell on November 20, 2014, received Petitioner

request for interview and responded on November 24, 2014 and stated: "You can

go to work". Numerous times of illegal retaliatory behavior against Petitioner and

was not permitted or allowed to work in PIA job assignment from June 9, 2014 to

June 26, 2014, from 6 am to 3 pm; a total of 12 days, and one case was terminated

after payment and at the date set by PIA. This was a course of reckless disregard

for clear reprisal to the plaintiff Hirscher v. Smith Case No. 14-0340-EMC. (See

SER 102.103...

Petitioner's case illustrate violation that Respondent's Phillip Earley, Gary

Loredo, Jeremy Young and Joe Dobie, who are not employed by the Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, but who are assigned to or engaged in work at San

Quentin State Prison facility, must observe all rules, regulation and state laws

governing the conduct of Respondent's at the facility at San Quentin, under the

Department of Correction jurisdiction, and violation of these provisions by the

Respondent's to engage in retaliatory conduct against Petitioner in the Settlement

Conference and not to comply with Respondent's obligations under the Settlement

Agreement that laid out specific regulations, policy, procedure to fully execute

CAL-PIA's obligations under the Settlement Agreement which was indifferent to

the consequences to Petitioner, there is sufficient evidence to support unwarranted

threat of termination. See Exhibit 1, under federal Rule of Evidence 901 (a), (b)

(1) and 902 (4)

-

this is the facts why Petitioner did not settle with the

Respondent's, the evidence shows an issue of numerous times of retaliatory

behavior against Petitioner, the court referred all the cases to the magistrate judge

for settlement proceedings, as to the issue of the identical evaluation that the court

did of the evidence, four of the cases settle, and CAL-PIA terminated three of the

*

*

four after payment —'this was a clear course of reprisal'. (See Albino, 747 F.3d at

1176-77 and Portsmouth Square, Inc. v. S holders Protective Comm. 770 F.2d

866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985), and See McDonnell Douglas Crop. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792, 802-041 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) it is undisputed that

Petitioner has successfully shown elements that in the Settlement Conference with

the Respondent's and the Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PTA), who had a

representative with complete settlement authority in attendance at the Settlement

Conference with all attorney's for the Respondent's adverse discriminatory action

show's "clear and convincing evidence" of an unconstitutional violation, such as

retaliation. Respondents have demonstrated the course of action in the Settlement

proceeding to threatened Petitioner with termination. See SER

101-102-103-

-

it'll,

The preponderance of evidence that Prison Officials and Prison Industry

Authority (CAL-PTA) facility, at San Quentin State Prison were on Notice of the

presence of asbestos and lead paint in the prison...

THE RESPONDENT HAS HAD AWARENESS OF THE RISKS!

Petitioner case illustrate the reckless disregard to conduct of all

Respondent's Joe Dobie, and Jeremy Young without concern for consequences or

danger to Petitioner regardless of whether anyone is hurt, it has been well-known

for more than half a century that asbestos is among the most powerful known

carcinogens, and is categorically unsafe for use in any application and in any

quantity. It is equally well known that using asbestos in pipe covering is among

the most dangerous applications of the substance. The Respondent's Joe Dobie

and Jeremy Young fully aware that there conduct create a risk of harm when the

Respondents were on notice of presence of dangerous asbestos and lead located

throughout the San Quentin State Prison and Prison Industry authority (CAL-PTA)

facility's this information was included in the San Quentin Wardens Bulletin

7

regarding the "Annual Asbestos Notification' that was directed to all staff at San

Quentin, also the information was included in the Prison Industry Authority

worksite orientation pamphlet for new employees, current Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation staff and outside personnel that puts all institutional

staff on notice not to disturb the asbestos and lead paint in the facility, the reckless

disregard to the health and Safety to Petitioner without concern for the

consequences or danger, the deprivation accrued when Respondent's Joe Dobie

and Jeremy Young, CAL-PTA Supervisor personally instructed the Petitioner to

engage in an illegal abatement activity.

Petitioner Terry informed Respondent's Joe Dobie and Jeremy Young

numerous times of the presence of asbestos between May and June 6, 2012, at the

(CAL-PTA) Mattress Factory at San Quentin Prison, as a result of the settled dust

due to the conditions of friable asbestos, Smith v. US 561 F.3d 1090, 1094, 1105

(10th

Cir. 2009), Petitioner Terry now suffers from pneumonia lung infection, as a

result, Petitioner Terry is now on an inhaler two or three times a day, Wallis V.

Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1076-1077 (9th Cir. 1995), evidence the Petitioner Terry

was required by Respondents Joe Dobie, and Jeremy Young to clean an asbestosladen area in the Mattress Factory for hours without adequate protective gear,

Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (lith Cir. 1990) and Gonyer v. McDonald,

874 F. Supp. 464, 466-67 (D. Mass. 1995), Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry 717 F.

Supp. 854, 866 DDC 1989) according to several government authorities, Medical

science has not established any minimum level of exposure to asbestos fibers,

which is considered to be safe, the evidence presented by Petitioner Terry in his

Informal Brief and his reply Brief to the Court, Case No. 17-15184, that asbestos

pipes insulation broke and caused dry particles to be disbursed throughout the

factory, onto Petitioner Terry and was required by Respondent's Jeremy Young to

bag and handled asbestos containing materials that had broken loose and lay

scattered around the Mattress Factory with other debris, Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d

at 1075, when Petitioner Terry complained that the work he was being asked to

perform put Petitioner at risk. Respondent's Joe Dobie, and Jeremy Young

actually knew of the asbestos in the Mattress Factory and nonetheless required

Petitioner to work in a manner that had disrupt the asbestos, Respondent's Joe

Dobie and Jeremy Young was informed by Correctional Officer Keith Davis, who

was in charge of Petitioner Terry Health and Safety Officer Davis, witnessed

firsthand the tasks the Petitioner was performing during his daily rounds

-

Officer

Davis told Respondent's Joe Dobie and Jeremy Young that the building was old

and warned the Respondents' of asbestos danger. None of the Respondent's Joe

Dobie and Jeremy Young took any action in response to Correctional Officer

Davis's warnings. Respondent's Joe Dobie and Jeremy Young were aware that the

power washer was being used floor to ceiling as it occurred. According to

Respondent's Jeremy Young's memorandum from June 7, 2012, all Respondent's

Joe Dobie, Jeremy Young knew there was at least some asbestos at San Quentin,

Wallis, 70 F.3d at 1077; it is not enough for Respondents Joe Dobie and Jeremy

Young to claim they did not know about the asbestos in the Mattress Factory.

Triable issues remain with regard to whether Respondents' Joe Dobie and Jeremy

Young was 'deliberate indifference' to the risk posed by the asbestos.

Petitioner Terry has satisfied the objective prong for asbestos exposure. At

the end of each workday, the Petitioner Terry was ordered by Respondent's Joe

Dobie and Jeremy Young to sweep up broke insulation debris that landed on the

floor, including dry asbestos particles, using push brooms, Petitioner pick-up large

debris with his hands and used dust-pans to pack contaminated materials into

plastic mattress bags to be disposed after his shift ended. On June 6, 2012 Luu

Rogers, the industrial Safety Coordinator for (CAL-PIA), visited the factory and

informed Jeremy Young of the dangerous working conditions, including the

presence of asbestos. The same day, Safety Coordinator Luu Rogers notified

Respondents Gary Loredo and Phillip Earley and sent a written memorandum to

•

Respondents that the Petitioner Terry work had been done near the asbestos pipe

wrapping on the steam line in the Mattress Factory. (Gonyer v. McDonald, 874 F.

Supp. 464-67 (D. Mass. 1995). Also on June 6, 2012, Elizabeth Babcock, the

prison's hazmat Material Specialist, identified the presence of airborne asbestos,

and ordered that the factory be shutdown, the Mattress Factory remained shut

down until June 29, 2012, when CAL-PIA subsequently retained Earthshine

Consulting Inc. an asbestos abatement company, to professionally clean the

Mattress Factory and test certain samples for asbestos.

CAL-PTA specifically identified fifteen areas of the factory for Earthshine to

'sample' excluding the large overhead heating pipe that was and remains covered

with asbestos. Earthshine was directed to inspect two smaller pipes, but did not

take samples because it simply assumed they contained asbestos, based on the

common presence of asbestos in such pipes.

The final Earthshine Report warned:

If you discover building materials that have not been identified and included

in this report you must stop work and not disturb such materials, but years after the

asbestos exposure pipes has not been alleviated and contaminated dangerous fibers

continue to fall on Petitioner Terry; I informed all Respondents Joe Dobie, Jeremy

Young, and Gary Loredo, with Phillip Earley, and Prison Industry Authority CALPTA on November 2, 2015. Petitioner Terry counsel, visited San Quentin State

Prison, and took 52 new photographs confirming the existing damage to the

asbestos pipes, after Earthshine Abatement Company was directed to inspect, for

several years the Respondent's and Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PTA) had been

informed numerous time of the asbestos problem in the Mattress Factory this

willful negligence and intentional disregard for the health and safety of Petitioner

Terry and he now suffers from pneumonia lung infection, as a result, Petitioner

terry is now on an inhaler, these Respondents and Prison Industry Authority (CALPTA) betrays each other's false testimony to cover-up the misconduct of one

10

another to the fact they work together, thus each remains culpable for the blatant

disregard for mandatory safety training on working in areas containing asbestos,

but today in 2018, years after the asbestos exposure incident on June 6, 2012, the

damaged overhead heating pipes has not been remediated and contaminated fibers

continue to fall. Respondents knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the

risk was obvious with regard to the asbestos exposure years after the June 6, 20121

cleaning incident. (See, Inmates of Occoquean v. Barry, 717 F. Supp. 854, 866

(D.D.C. 1989), and Herman v. Holiday 238 F.3d 660, 663-65 (5 1h Cir. 2001), with

Gonyer v. McDonald, 874 F.Supp. 464, 466-67 (D. Mass. 1995)

CONCLUSION

The Respondent's, Phillip Earley, Jeremy Young, Joe Dobie, and Gary

Loredo, with the representative of Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PIA) engaged

in retaliation in Settlement Conference Negotiations and Deprivation accrued when

the Attorneys on behalf of all Respondent's and representative of Prison Industry

Authority (CAL-PIA) did not comply with its obligations under Settlement

Agreement that laid out specific regulations, policy, procedure an ethical and

professional standard to fully execute Respondent's and the representative of

Prison Industry (CAL-PTA) obligations under the Settlement Negotiations, all

Attorneys on the behalf of all Respondent's including the law Office of Nancy E.

Hudgins, that represented Respondent's Philip Earley, Gary Loredo, and Joe

Dobie, except for Respondent Jeremy Young who is being represented separately

by Attorney at Law Kenneth Williams

-

engaged in retaliatory behavior in the

Settlement Negotiations. Deprivation accrued when the Attorneys for the

Respondent's had been authorized to make the following Settlement Offer by

stating to Petitioner Terry:

11

"Your employment by the Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PIA) will be

terminated after payment and at a date set by the Prison Industry Authority (CALPTA) and not apply for a job in the future and the Prison Industry Authority (CALPTA) may reject any such application at any CAL-PTA location facility".

Threats made in Settlement Negotiations is admissible when the claim is

based upon wrong that was committed during the course of Settlement

Negotiations, (See Uforma

-

Shelby Bus. Forms, Inc. v. NLRB, 11 F.3d 1284 (6th

Cir. 1997).)

This does not exclude evidence of alleged threat of retaliation against

Petitioner Terry for his protected activity when the statements occurred during and

after negotiations, focused on the protected activity of the Petitioner Terry, and the

evidence serves to prove liability of all Respondent's Phillip Earley, Joe Dobie,

Jeremy Young and Gary Loredo, with the representative for Prison Industry

Authority (CAL-PTA). The retaliatory conduct orchestrated in Settlement against

Petitioner Terry, for bringing a legal civil suit action thereby violating Petitioner

Terry's Constitutional Right of the First, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendment.

The Respondents who are under the Department of Corrections and

rehabilitation jurisdiction, and who are not employed by the department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, but who are assigned to or engaged in work at any

Department facility, must observe all Rules, Regulations and Laws governing the

conduct of the Prison Industry Authority Employees

Respondent's Phillip Earley,

-

Joe Dobie, and Jeremy Young, did violate these provisions and resulted in their

exclusion from the San Quentin facility.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Jurisdiction states under

Title 15, §3084.1 (a) and §3084.1 (d):

"No Reprisal Shall Be Taken Against Petitioner Terry, For Filing a

Complaint".

12

The Respondent's participate and engaged in vindictive retaliatory behavior

in the Settlement Offer, See Exhibit 1, upon a showing of personal involvement in

the constitutional deprivation or a sufficient causal connection between the

Respondent's wrongful conduct against Petitioner Terry, and standing alone these

actions show a conscious and deliberate decision by the Employer the

Respondent's Phillip Earley, Joe Dobie, Jeremy Young and Gary Loredo, with

Prison Industry Authority (CAL-PIA) is not shield from liability... The threat is

the actionable wrong or either for making, or later acting upon the threats

-

Petitioner Dewey Steven Terry, there is a genuine issue of material facts of

against

-

evidence in this legal action. The Respondent's Phillip Earley, Joe Dobie, Jeremy

Young, and Gary Loredo, with (CAL-PIA) should have known the perils opposed

by retaliation against Petitioner Terry, in a Settlement Negotiation.

Petitioner Dewey Steven Terry, asks this Honorable Court to rule on the

preponderance of evidence presented to Supreme Court of the United States.

DEWEY STEVEN TERRY, CDC# D-08191

Name

4nature

L. . .

CSP San Quentin, 4 North 25 low

San Quentin, CA 94974

Address

Friday, July 13, 2018

Date

13

.................. . ....... ...