Access to courts from jail

1. Whether the Decision Below Conflicts with This Court ’ s Precedents on Access to Courts and the Liberal Construction of Pro Se Filings. 2. Whether a pro se civil rights plaintiff demonstrates “ extraordinary circumstances ” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) sufficient to justify reopening a final judgment when, for a two-month period critical to post-judgment deadlines, she was illegally, unlawfully and unconstitutionally imprisoned by the defendants themselves and held in a jail cell for nearly two weeks without any means to access the courts, including being denied mail, telephone, and writing materials. 3. Whether a court of appeals errs by applying a strict forfeiture rule to a pro se litigant who focuses her appellate brief on the merits of the underlying dismissal rather than the procedural denial of her post-judgment motion, particularly when the basis for the post-judgment motion —unconstitutional interference with her right of access to the courts—is inextricably intertwined with the substantive claims against the defendants. 4. Whether the continuing violations doctrine applies to toll the time for filing a post judgment motion where state actors, who are the defendants in the underlying § 1983 action, commit new, related constitutional violations (false imprisonment and denial of access to the courts) after judgment has entered, and where the related criminal case against the petitioner was not terminated in her favor until November 24, 2025 after the appeal was decided.