Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Congress's passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
District Judge: This is an appeal from the District Court's denial of appellants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Appellants1 raise three issues on appeal: 1) whether appellants are entitled to qualified immunity for the ETS claims. 2) whether appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the 1. The appellants are Stanley Taylor (Commissioner of the Department of Correction). All ranks are those held by appellants at the time of filing of the complaint. 2 retaliation and excessive force claims. 3) whether appellants in supervisory positions are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims because they lacked notice of the underlying events. We will affirm the District Court's denial of summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND2 Appellee Roger Atkinson is a blind. Diabetic prisoner who was housed at Delaware's Multi Purpose Criminal Justice Facility (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Almost eight hours passed between the time when he first reported feeling sick and when he was finally taken to a doctor. Is a federal prisoner housed at the United States Penitentiary. Was convicted on November 28. Is currently serving a 262 month sentence. Kikumura's cell at 2:50 p.m. and observed that he
|
|
HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND
|
|
HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. Which is with the words of the statutory provision.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. The lawsuit was filed on March 10. Judgment was entered on June 24. The six plaintiffs who were released from confinement during that interval are Danny Chadwick. 190 F.3d at 1283.The other five plaintiffs were still confined when judgment was entered in the district court but. Some of them have been released since then. All eleven of the plaintiffs are jointly represented in this appeal. Their counsel does not argue that any of those who were released after the date of the district court's judgment are. Our references hereafter to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is HIV positive. He was informed by the medical staff at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (SCIP) that his medical condition would be kept confidential. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. Because this right was not clearly established at the time of defendants' conduct. We will affirm the dismissal of Doe's complaint. Doe was informed by the medical staff that he was HIV positive. He was told that his medical condition would be kept confidential and that medical r ecords relating to his illness would be maintained separately from his general prison file. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. When Doe was taken for sick call appointments. Doe claimed his constitutional right to privacy was violated by the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We accepted jurisdiction and have consolidated them for purposes of decision. 3084.6(c).1 If the issue is not resolved during the informal appeal. The grievant next proceeds to the first formal appeal There are eight situations in which attempted resolution at the informal level is not required. The informal level is not required when a grievance involves
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Spruill is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
|
|
HATCH DONALD J. V. DC
Hatch was on the briefs for appellant. J. With her on the brief were John M. Ferren. The comparative baseline for determining wheth er appellant's segregation was an ". we hold that due process is required when segregative con finement imposes an ". They also include more restrictive condi tions at other prisons if it is likely both that inmates serving sentences similar to appellant's will actually be transferred to such prisons and that once transferred they will actually face such conditions. We reverse its grant of summary judgment for appellee and remand for further consideration of appellant's due process claim in light of this opinion. I Appellant Donald Hatch is a District of Columbia convict serving multiple sentences for armed robbery. The events giving rise to this suit oc curred while Hatch was an inmate at the Lorton Correctional Complex. Hatch claims that Lorton officials kept him in segregation because bed space was unavailable in the general population. Although Hatch's confinement consisted of two weeks of adjustment segregation and twenty nine weeks of administra tive segregation.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hatch was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were John M. We must define
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Those officials had violated his constitutional rights.[fn1] Holding that defendants enjoyed qualified immunity because the law in this area was unsettled in our circuit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. Plaintiff Polyns Bieregu is incarcerated at the federal prison in Fairton. The federal regulatory framework for handling prisoner mail is straightforward. Incoming special mail must be marked
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Booth alleges that while he was confined in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Correctional Institute at Smithfield. Or other 2 correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Believing it was constrained by this court's decision in Allen v. We consider whether the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Whose recoveries under 42 2 Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 U.S.C. §1988(b) in constitutional tort litigation are not subject to any statutory maximum. That §1997e(d) is within Congress' authority. We hold that §1997e(d) is rationally related to valid objectives and hence is within the legislative power. Whether or not it is wise. I Section 1997e(d) provides: (1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail. In which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. §1988]. Except to the extent that (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded . . . . (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation. Or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 (2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1). If the award of attorney's fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The primary issue for decision is whether we should overrule the holding of Gibbs v. The prisoner has br ought a federal action or appeal that was dismissed on the gr ounds that it was frivolous. Unless the prisoner
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Facts Tamms is the highest security prison in Illinois. All Tamms prisoners are exposed to hardships that are not experienced in segregated confine No. 03 3318 3 1 ment at any other maximum security facility in Illinois. The plaintiffs are organized into two categories. Some of whom are also litigation plaintiffs. Are associated with prison gangs (in IDOC terminology. It appears that several have been released from IDOC's custody or no longer are at Tamms. To the extent that the appellants no longer are in custody or are incarcerated at Tamms. Only three counts of which are now before this court. The district court held that the litigation plaintiffs met the threshold requirements of § 1915A because retaliation for exercising one's right to access to the courts is a cognizable constitutional claim. A more detailed rendition of the district court's rationale is set forth in our discussion of each claim on appeal. The gang plaintiffs challenge IDOC's regulations that allow officials to transfer prisoners who are gang 3 At oral argument.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
AMATEL JOSEPH V. HAWK, KATHLEEN
With him on the briefs were Frank W. With her on the brief were Ann M. Taylor was on the brief for amici curiae National Coalition for the Protection of Children &. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens to reject a publication
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Frank W. With her on the brief were Ann M. Taylor was on the brief for amici curiae National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens to reject a publication
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Mata had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an Eighth Amendment claim and that defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Contending the district court erred when it determined there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning (1) whether Ms. Hough were deliberately indifferent to Ms. Saiz was deliberately indifferent to Ms. Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows
|
|
WILSON V. SARGENT (12/6/2002, NO. 01-14827)
The court was required to ascertain whether Wilson had attempted to comply with the fee order by requesting or authorizing prison officials to withdraw the partial filing fee from his prison trust fund account. That the prisoner
|
|
WILSON V. SARGENT (12/6/2002, NO. 01-14827)
The court was required to ascertain whether Wilson had attempted to comply with the fee order by requesting or authorizing prison officials to withdraw the partial filing fee from his prison trust fund account. That the prisoner
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tillman is a former prisoner who was assessed a fee of $10.00 per day for housing costs stemming from two periods of incarceration in a county facility for state parole violations. When Tillman was confined for the second term. For which his account was turned over to a collection agency after his release from prison. We will affirm. I. Facts The underlying facts are. Tillman was incarcerated in the Lebanon County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania between January 30. Parole was again granted. These actions were taken pursuant to the facility's Cost Recovery Program. Prisoners are assessed a daily charge of $10.00 towards their housing expenses. The availability of prison services is not contingent upon keeping a clean account. A negative account balance is created. Any remainder is credited to the prisoner's inmate account for his or her personal use. If there is still an outstanding negative balance upon a prisoner's release from jail. Any funds remaining in his or her inmate account are put towards the debt.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Senior District Judge: Presently before the Court is Appellant Abdul Nasir's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court was required to ascertain whether Wilson had attempted to comply with the fee order by requesting or authorizing prison officials to withdraw the partial filing fee from his prison trust fund account. That the prisoner
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand 2 the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. DeHart is currently serving a life sentence at SCI at Greene. Which are Buddhist religious texts. Challenge whether vegetarianism is mandated by any recognized Buddhist sect. A brief overview of the inmate meal process at DeHart's institution is necessary to understand his request. The food for those meals is obtained through bulk purchases. The therapeutic diet consists of the same foods (in different proportions) that are served on the master menu. The therapeutic meals are prepared individually. All inmates who have been prescribed a therapeutic diet eat together in one dining hall after it has been cleared of other inmates. DeHart proposes that he be served a vegetarian meal when other inmates are served therapeutic meals. Which is not currently purchased by the Department of Corrections (
|
|
NAPIER V. PRESLICKA (12/10/2002, NO. 00-13064)
Louis Napier was actually John Napier. John Napier is actually Louis's brother. The charge eventually was nolle prossed.
|
|
NAPIER V. PRESLICKA (12/10/2002, NO. 00-13064)
Louis Napier was actually John Napier. John Napier is actually Louis's brother. The charge eventually was nolle prossed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are New Jersey prison officials. The New Jersey Department of Corrections promulgated a policy in 1998 that was designed to isolate and rehabilitate gang members. The goal of this policy is to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Hamilton is incarcerated at the maximum security Potosi The facility provides crossCorrectional Center (Potosi).1 denominational religious facilities inside prison buildings. American Indian inmates at Potosi are allowed to pray. American Indians are also allowed to carry medicine bags containing ceremonial items and have access to a ceremonial pipe and kinnikinnik (a ceremonial
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Filed an amended complaint in federal court in which he alleged:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Will & Emery. Ramirez's complaint alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by the procedures utilized in a prison disciplinary hearing. We further conclude that Ramirez's challenge to his term of segregated confinement is cognizable under § 1983 as a potentially atypical and significant hardship. We conclude that the District Court's dismissal of Ramirez's Equal Protection and supervisory liability claims was an abuse of discretion. We will therefore reverse the dismissal. I. BACKGROUND Ramirez is incarcerated at the Corcoran State Prison in California. Was charged with
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This matter is before the court on Appellant's petition for panel rehearing of the order and judgment issued July 25. We grant the petition in part for the purpose of providing factual corrections which have no bearing on the disposition of Mr. Adding a sentence to explain that the razor blade incident was later expunged from his disciplinary prison record. Is vacated and replaced with the amended Order and Judgment attached to this Order. It is undisputed Mr. Jordan was serving a sentence for one count of armed bank robbery and a sentence for another count of armed bank robbery and possession of a firearm in relation to a (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Jordan was imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Complex in Florence. Jordan was confined at federal prisons in Allenwood. Where he was classified as a high security risk based on his significant history of violent and disruptive behavior stemming from numerous infractions. Jordan in a dry cell after he was accused that day of murdering another inmate with an eleven inch sharpened piece of metal while in the main recreation yard.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that the Rule was constitutional and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Plaintiffs now appeal the holdings that the Rule was not contrary to the freedom of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Rule 12 was repromulgated as Rule 24. Rule 24 was replaced by a substantially identical Rule 46. Rule 46 was revised to clarify the definitions of family member and visitor and recognize the power of the MDOC to grant individual employees limited exemptions to the Rule. An employee would have to submit a misleadingly titled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Normally that pairing would have been made by Centralia's placement office. Who was serving the second shift. A pairing that should have lasted only until the placement officers on the day shift could review matters. His lead off argument is that Riccardo failed to use his administrative remedies. Rausch contends it was too late (in February 1998. The official handling the grievance must have found good cause. The federal judiciary will not second guess that action. Its main objective was to have Garcia prosecuted. This language is ambiguous. There are two principal ways to reduce the number of sexual assaults in prison: better steps ex ante to separate potential aggressors from potential victims. A prison administration receiving such a grievance should have considered both.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will therefore vacate the judgment of the District Court. Facts and Procedural History Woodall is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix. He was convicted of alien smuggling in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and was sentenced on December 15. Woodall was sentenced to another six months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. He was released on March 26. Woodall was arrested by California authorities for possession of a controlled substance. Woodall represented that his offense was a result of the fact that he was released by the BOP on March 26. The Woodall explained to the sentencing court that he was released on a Friday. That 30 days before his release he had asked to have his probation moved from California where he had no ties to Oklahoma where his family lived. Woodall states that once he was released. He went to his probation department to explain that he was homeless and needed a transfer or assistance.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Wilson alleges that his due process rights were violated when a Class X misconduct conviction caused him to be demoted from a credit earning prisoner to a non credit earning prisoner because no evidence supported the misconduct conviction. He was charged with violating Oklahoma law. Wilson was demoted from a class level four prisoner. First we examine the Oklahoma law he was accused of violating. A. Oklahoma Law Regarding Use of Mandatory Savings Accounts Prisoners in Oklahoma are required to keep a mandatory savings account. Included under Title 28 and payable by a mandatory savings account are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Indigent inmates are guaranteed care. Their prison accounts are debited for the relevant charges. The following facts are uncontested or were found by the district court. Between 100 and 120 are federal inmates housed under contract with the federal government. The remaining 550 inmates are held under state law. Approximately 35% of the inmate population is Hispanic. Adopted a program under which the inmates held under state law are generally charged small fees when they seek health care. The purpose of the fee program is not to generate revenue but to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Indigent inmates are guaranteed care. Their prison accounts are debited for the relevant charges. The following facts are uncontested or were found by the district court. Between 100 and 120 are federal inmates housed under contract with the federal government. The remaining 550 inmates are held under state law. Approximately 35% of the inmate population is Hispanic. Adopted a program under which the inmates held under state law are generally charged small fees when they seek health care. The purpose of the fee program is not to generate revenue but to
|
|
00-1086 -- BEERHEIDE V. SUTHERS -- 04/11/2002
Claiming their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion was violated when they were not provided kosher meals while incarcerated in the Colorado prison system. 1413 (D.Colo. 1998) (Beerheide I). While the case was pending. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was declared unconstitutional in Flores v. Are adopted for purposes of the trial of the following remaining issues in this case: 1) Plaintiff Beerheide's sincerity of belief in Judaism. The district court found the following facts: Plaintiffs are inmates at Fremont Correctional Facility. Whose father is Jewish. Was not raised Jewish and did not practice Judaism before he was incarcerated. Beerheide was sent to prison. Was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family. Until approximately 10 years before he was incarcerated in 1989. Testified that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who is incarcerated in a New York State prison. Sitting by designation. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 dismiss the plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the special housing unit confinement was too brief to support a due process claim and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to the Eighth Amendment claim. We conclude that such complete dismissal is not required. Can survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) despite the fact that his period of confinement was less than 101 days. BACKGROUND Many of the relevant facts underlying this appeal are set forth in our prior opinion in this case. 191. 323 F.3d We repeat them here insofar as Because we think it necessary to explain our resolution of this appeal. the appeal is from the district court's dismissal of Ortiz's complaint. We state the facts as they are alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether the district court properly dismissed a prisoner's complaint for failing to exhaust all available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Even though the prisoner's administrative appeal was deemed time barred and no further level of appeal remained in the state prison's internal appeals process. This is an issue of first impression in our Circuit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Background Viet Mike Ngo is currently serving a life sentence at Avenal State Prison in California. Ngo was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. Ngo was placed in administrative segregation on October 26. Ngo was placed back in the general prison population. Ngo was restricted from participating in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Thereby potentially presenting as many as five issues to this court: (1) whether Levine's challenges to the BOP policy and regulation are now moot. (2) whether Levine's challenges to the BOP actions are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (3) whether his challenges to the December 2002 Policy are justiciable in this case. (4) whether the February 2005 Rule is contrary to the BOP's governing statutes. Facts & Procedural History Levine was convicted in the Southern District of New York of bank fraud in violation of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 18 U.S.C. § 1344. He was sentenced on September 8. He was sent to the Federal Correctional Institution. As could have occurred pursuant to the BOP policy in place before December 2002. The district court denied his petition on the grounds that the December 2002 Policy was no longer in effect and would not govern the BOP's determination regarding Levine's CCC placement. Finding that the rule was a proper exercise of the BOP's categorical rulemaking authority and did not violate the ex post facto doctrine.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A former state prisoner who is no longer
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * The a dditional named plaintiffs are Robert Baksi. Which is a supermaximum. A class was certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Were settled. The due process claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were then tried to the district court. That even if a violation was correctly found. Represent an attempt to concentrate the
|
|
02-1540 -- COSBY V. MEADORS -- 12/10/2003
We affirm. The issue here is not money per se. As will become apparent as we recount the factual background. Is respect for the judicial process and the law. We have occasion to set forth the duties of indigent prisoners with respect to the payment of filing fees. I. Or (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6 month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. Id. The remainder of the filing fee is to be paid in monthly installments. The amount of each installment is prescribed by
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court declined to rule on the defendants' claim of qualified immunity before trial and instead instructed the jury to determine whether certain correspondence was in fact legal mail and whether that correspondence had been improperly opened outside of Sallier's presence. As well as the district court's failure to grant a new trial based on a number of evidentiary decisions and what they contend were erroneous jury instructions. We conclude that the question of what constitutes
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that Warden Deeds's practice of opening and inspecting Altizer's outgoing mail was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. When he was sentenced to two life terms for the abduction and rape of an eleven year old girl. Altizer was informed that any legal mail he addressed to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Dissent by Judge Silverman *Defendant Roderick Hickman was erroneously named as Rodney Hickman. **The Honorable Myron H. We conclude that the right to procreate survives incarceration and that the factually unsupported arguments put forth by the Warden as legitimate penological reasons to restrict Gerber's exercise of his right to procreate are insufficient to justify dismissal of the complaint. I. BACKGROUND1 This case concerns a life term prisoner's effort to have a child by artificially inseminating his wife. Artificial insemination is a noncoital process in which semen is collected from a man under laboratory conditions and then introduced into a woman's body with a needleless hypodermic syringe at a favorable time in her ovulation cycle. 202 (1997) (noting a conservative estimate that there have been more than 500. Gerber was sentenced to 100 years to life imprisonment plus eleven years pursuant to California's three strikes law. He is constrained in employing the usual methods for achieving this goal because he is a life term prisoner incarcerated in California.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Dissent by Judge Silverman *Defendant Roderick Hickman was erroneously named as Rodney Hickman. **The Honorable Myron H. We conclude that the right to procreate survives incarceration and that the factually unsupported arguments put forth by the Warden as legitimate penological reasons to restrict Gerber's exercise of his right to procreate are insufficient to justify dismissal of the complaint. I. BACKGROUND1 This case concerns a life term prisoner's effort to have a child by artificially inseminating his wife. Artificial insemination is a noncoital process in which semen is collected from a man under laboratory conditions and then introduced into a woman's body with a needleless hypodermic syringe at a favorable time in her ovulation cycle. 202 (1997) (noting a conservative estimate that there have been more than 500. Gerber was sentenced to 100 years to life imprisonment plus eleven years pursuant to California's three strikes law. He is constrained in employing the usual methods for achieving this goal because he is a life term prisoner incarcerated in California.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That the other named officials knew about and did nothing to stop Laird's activities until after Kaba was actually beaten in his cell on February 23. Because we find there are disputed issues of fact about whether administrative remedies were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Claims that he was beaten by prison guards in retaliation for punching 2 No. 05 1868 an assistant warden. He did not have the option of mailing the grievance himself. Dole was not given any instructions on what to do next. A new one would have been untimely. Although the ARB will accept untimely filings with good cause shown. Claiming that he strictly complied with all regulations when filing his grievance and did all that he was capable of doing to assure that his complaint reached the ARB. The conduct alleged in Dole's suit Joseph Dole was an inmate at Menard Correctional Center on March 15. As he was being restrained in the prison yard. He claims that he was beaten by defendants Biggs and Hess. He states that he was then transported to the Health Care Unit. Where he was beaten by defendants Chandler. Dole was examined and it was discovered that he had suffered a broken nose and several small abrasions and bruises on his ribs. Dole alleges that he was transported to Tamms Correctional Center in a van with the windows open.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellees.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that California inmates continue to have a liberty interest in parole after In re Dannenberg. The state court decisions upholding Sass' parole denials were not contrary to. Sass was convicted of second degree murder. He was sentenced to fifteen years to life with the possibility of parole. The Board cited the
|
|
98-3292 -- LILE V. MCKUNE -- 09/05/2000
Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing. He was convicted in Kansas state court of aggravated kidnaping. Plaintiff was required to disclose his sexual history. Including the crime of which he was convicted and any uncharged sexual offenses. He also complained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the intrusive nature of the plethysmograph examination. Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is properly granted where.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which is incorrect in certain respects. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly. ** The Honorable J. Salahuddin was and remains in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief. I Garrison Johnson is an African American prisoner in the California Department of Corrections (
|
|
99-1284 -- KIKUMURA V. HURLEY -- 03/09/2001
Because the district court committed legal error in holding Plaintiff did not have a substantial likelihood of success on his RFRA claim and would not be irreparably harmed absent an injunction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff appellant Yu Kikumura is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary. Defendant John Hurley is Warden at the Penitentiary. Gallegos is an Associate Warden at the Penitentiary. Who is originally from Japan. Rickard's request to visit Plaintiff was denied by prison officials. During the next several months Plaintiff. Defendant Hurley then sent letters to Plaintiff and Yasutake explaining that the requests were denied because they did not meet the criteria for pastoral visits established by Bureau of Prisons (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issue presented on appeal is whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were unable to obtain a marriage license because Chaiffetz's incarceration made it impossible for him to comply with an Ohio statute requiring both applicants for a marriage license to appear personally before the probate court. After the settlement was obtained. No. 01 4035 entered an order stating that plaintiffs' request for an injunction was moot. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that they were protected by qualified immunity and refused to award attorney's fees because plaintiffs were not prevailing parties within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (2) finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. I. Ira Chaiffetz and Laura Toms (now Laura Chaiffetz) became engaged while Chaiffetz was incarcerated at the Warren Correctional Institution (WCI) in Warren County.
|
|
00-1485 -- GWINN V. AWMILLER -- 01/12/2004
We agree with the district court that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment. I. Gwinn was charged in Colorado state court with robbery. The sexual assault charge was dismissed. One of the requirements of the treatment program was that Mr. Informed him that he was required to register with the Denver Police Department as a sex offender and attend a community treatment program or he would be returned to prison for violation of his parole. Gwinn alleges that he was denied employment when background checks revealed that he had been classified as a sex offender. Mr. He was released on parole in February 2000. One of the conditions of his parole was to participate in a treatment program for sex offenders. Gwinn alleged that his parole was revoked several months later. Gwinn as a sex offender was appropriate. Mr. Gwinn was released from incarceration. DISCUSSION On appeal. Summary judgment is appropriate if
|
|
00-1485A -- GWINN V. AWMILLER -- 01/12/2004
We agree with the district court that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment. I. Gwinn was charged in Colorado state court with robbery. The sexual assault charge was dismissed. One of the requirements of the treatment program was that Mr. Informed him that he was required to register with the Denver Police Department as a sex offender and attend a community treatment program or he would be returned to prison for violation of his parole. Gwinn alleges that he was denied employment when background checks revealed that he had been classified as a sex offender. Mr. He was released on parole in February 2000. One of the conditions of his parole was to participate in a treatment program for sex offenders. Gwinn alleged that his parole was revoked several months later. Gwinn as a sex offender was appropriate. Mr. Gwinn was released from incarceration. DISCUSSION On appeal. Summary judgment is appropriate if
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting defendants summary judgment on claims that defendants infringed upon. 1 contend that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' former policy of limiting inmates' access to religious material while they were confined in a special unit for highrisk inmates was unconstitutional both as applied and facially because defendants used
|
|
ONISHEA V. HOPPER (4/7/1999, NO. 96-6213)
All of whom are prison inmates who have tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Have sued officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
|
|
ONISHEA V. HOPPER (4/7/1999, NO. 96-6213)
All of whom are prison inmates who have tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Have sued officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tilton is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended as follows: [Slip Opinion at p. 7640] Replace the words
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The exception is Plaintiff's claim that the Government negligently failed to discharge a nondiscretionary duty to perform a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tilton is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: Antolin Andrews is a prisoner who has filed several dozen lawsuits in federal court during his confinement. His success rate on the merits of his cases is much less enviable. Even if the inmate is indigent.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Owens appealed both aspects of the judgment and the imposition of a second filing fee after his first complaint was dismissed for failure to exhaust. We also HOLD that a second filing fee should not be assessed to a prisoner whose initial complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Owens was imprisoned in Nashville. An individual program planner hearing was held pursuant to TDOC Administrative Policies and Procedures (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief was Jonathan M. They alleged that some class members were deficient in the English language and that the District had failed to provide qualified interpreters to these inmates when they appeared at parole and disciplinary hearings and when they sought medical care. I There are 9. Mem bers of the prison staff are fluent in a total of forty seven languages. 1 The district court certified a class consisting of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 I. DeHart is currently serving a life sentence at SCI at Greene. Which are Buddhist religious texts. Challenge whether vegetarianism is a central tenet of any recognized Buddhist sect. A brief overview of the process by which Pennsylvania prisons provide meals to inmates is necessary for a proper understanding of DeHart's request. The food for those meals is obtained through bulk purchases. The therapeutic diet consists of the same foods (in different proportions) that are served on the master menu. The therapeutic meals are prepared individually. All inmates who have been prescribed a therapeutic diet eat together in one dining hall after it has been cleared of the other inmates. DeHart proposes that he be served a vegetarian meal when other inmates are served the therapeutic meals. As she 3 is not currently purchased by the Department of Corrections (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was not required to exhaust administrative remedies and. : Frank Ruggiero alleges that he was subjected to excessive force by corrections officers on multiple occasions during his incarceration at Orange County Correctional Facility (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hester was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: This case is one of three companion cases that we decide today. Filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the procedures by which he was denied parole. Finding that the federal courts are precluded by a provision of the D.C. Also contends that Blair Bey is required. Is not subject to the PLRA's filing fee requirements. That the United States Parole Commission is not a proper defendant. That although Blair Bey's due process claim is meritless. His ex post facto claim might have merit if certain facts are shown. I. Background Blair Bey was born in 1958. So was confined part of this time at St. Was given a sentence of from ten years to life. Was sentenced to a term of ten years to life to be served consecutively with his prior sentence. He was then trans ferred to a federal correctional facility and began to serve his second (U.S. Board of Parole (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That he was denied a fair hearing on the contraband charges. He was placed in disciplinary confinement for several months. Including four days in a cell that was smeared with feces and infested with flies and in which he could not eat. The District Court dismissed Mitchell's complaint sua sponte the day it was filed without requiring service on the defendants. While Mitchell was an inmate in the Drug and Alcohol Unit at the Graterford Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania (
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that Procedure 770 is an exaggerated. Unreasonable response to prison officials' legitimate concerns about the safety of prison staff and thereby unconstitutionally restricts the public's First Amendment right to view executions from the moment the condemned is escorted into the execution chamber. It is helpful to understand the execution process. Approximately 25 minutes before the execution is scheduled to take place. Though his legs are free. The condemned is handcuffed and his wrists are shackled to his waist. The condemned is laid on a gurney. To which he is secured with six straps. Two of the four guards leave and two medical technicians enter to insert two intravenous lines (one is redundant. Once the intravenous lines are inserted. Representatives of the public and the press have been allowed to witness California's entire execution process from start to finish. Strap him into the chair and administer the lethal gas until he was declared dead. Witnesses were not permitted to watch Bonin as the guards brought him into the chamber.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Published opinion filed 1/20/99 is vacated. Line 5 the word
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The defendants are MDOC Inspector and Alger Maximum Correctional Facility Security Threat Group Coodinator Lyle Rutter. Is a Moorish American Muslim affiliated with a gang known as the Vice Lords. He indicated that he was contemplating legal action against Rutter.
|
|
00-1437 -- WIRSCHING V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 02/19/2004
2003 was incarcerated by the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) on a conviction for sexual assault of a minor. Wirsching's refusal to admit that he had committed a sexual assault were not so severe as to likely compel him to be a witness against himself. BACKGROUND The relevant facts are not in dispute. One of the requirements for participation is that the inmate admit that he has engaged in the conduct that led to his classification as a sex offender.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ruiz is therefore no longer a party to this action. Which is incorrect in certain respects. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly. 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (William H. Was diagnosed with Hepatitis C. the care of physicians both at Green Haven and at a private clinic. He underwent a liver biopsy to verify the diagnosis and then was treated with both Interferon and Ribavirin. Pabon Under complains that his Hepatitis treatment was conditioned on his 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 submission to a liver biopsy and that the Interferon treatment resulted in serious side effects about which he was not warned. He would have refused treatment. We hold that Pabon is correct that the Fourteenth Amendment's recognized liberty interest in an individual's right to refuse medical treatment carries with it a concomitant right to such information as a reasonable patient would deem necessary to make an informed decision regarding medical treatment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and is a former Resident Research Assistant in the Laboratory of Molecular Carcinogenesis in the Division of Cancer Etiology. Which is affiliated with the National Institutes of Health. Lehn's current interest in smoke is. He is currently serving time in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). He has sued 2 No. 01 1957 to challenge both certain IDOC practices that allegedly are denying him his right of access to the courts and IDOC policies that tolerate excessively high levels of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the state's prisons. Lehn's pro se complaint was dismissed by the district court because the judge believed his claims were either rendered moot after Lehn was transferred to a different prison facility or were unripe for adjudication. We agree with Lehn that his access claim is ripe for judicial consideration and that both the access tocourts and the ETS parts of his complaint state claims for which relief may be granted. Lehn was incarcerated at Big Muddy River for four years.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Ernesto Lira was for several years placed in administrative segregation. Because prison officials determined that he was affiliated with a prison gang and posed a threat to prison safety. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Lira is a former inmate of the California corrections system. Where he was immediately
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Michael Witzke pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment by a Wisconsin court. Witzke was placed on probation for eight years pending his successful completion of probation. Witzke was taking prescribed medications to control symptoms of depression and anxiety. Witzke was held in Outagamie County Jail (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That gender was not a bona fide occupational qualification (a
|
|
02-2337 -- ROSS V. COUNTY OF BERNALILLO -- 04/28/2004
Plaintiff Michael Rene Ross brings Eighth Amendment claims against several defendants alleging that a slippery shower floor was unreasonably dangerous and that he did not receive appropriate medical attention after falling in the shower and injuring his shoulder. Ross fell in the shower at the McKinley County Detention Center (
|
|
MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
For himself and on behalf of all similarly situated prisoners who are confined or will be confined in Long Term Segregation Units of State Prisons located in the Western Judicial District of Pennsylvania. We disagree and therefore will reverse. I. Factual and Procedural Background The LTSU was established at SCI Pittsburgh in April 2000 as a place to confine a small population of inmates1 which the DOC views. Violent or problematic to house elsewhere.2 Inmates are classified at
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We must again consider whether a prison cook supervisor is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Becomes unconstitutional once an execution date is set because at that time it ceases to be in the prisoner's medical interest. The facts giving rise to Singleton's conviction were set forth in the Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal: The victim. Was murdered in York's Grocery Store at Hamburg on June 1. The evidence of guilt in this case is overwhelming. Charles Singleton is killing me.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The 15 plaintiffs in these three consolidated cases are prisoners who were convicted by Wisconsin state courts and held. WCF is operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The plaintiffs allege that they were severely beaten and subjected to racial epithets by members of WCF's Special Operations Response Team (SORT) in August of 1998. The grievance procedure is summarized in this section. While the plaintiffs' claims are discussed under the individual subheadings in Part II.C. below. WCF's grievance procedure in effect during August of 1998 was outlined in an inmate handbook dated July 6. Informal resolution of grievances is encouraged. This process is initiated prior to the formal logging of a grievance in which the inmate agrees to allow a staff member to attempt to resolve his complaint. The grievance office is located in the F wing. Grievance forms are available from any unit team member or in the library. The mail box is emptied daily. Nos. 03 5227/5228/5389 forwarded to the grievance chairperson or shift supervisor (whenever the chairperson is not available) for immediate attention.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who is presently confined at New Jersey State Prison at Trenton. Is serving a life sentence with a thirty five year mandatory minimum for armed robbery and weapon offenses. Bradley Boyd and Patricia LaFlore (collectively
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Robert Perry DeHart (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Creech's action alleged that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution while an inmate at Powhatan as a result of Dr. He was not returned for post operative care until January 11. The United States 1 Creech's complaint also named several other persons as defendants who are not parties to this appeal. 2 magistrate judge who tried the case granted Dr. Creech was taken to MCV's Oral Surgery Clinic in Richmond. Elastics were attached to the small hooks thereby immobilizing Creech's upper and lower jaws in a closedmouth position referred to in the medical field as intermaxillary fixation. Intended for Creech to remain in intermaxillary fixation between six and ten weeks as determined by post operative progress and evaluation.2 Creech was discharged from 2 The mandible is surrounded by very large muscles that control its motion. There is a lot of bleeding within the muscle.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ray's notice of appeal was filed pro se. Ray's appeal was handled by John P. Who were at the time of briefing students at Seton Hall Law School under the supervision of Professor Romberg. Prison or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We have before us two cases that have been consolidated on appeal. 1 While the District Courts in these cases both addressed the constitutionality of a New Jersey regulation A third appeal that was originally consolidated. Has been severed and is being resolved in a not precedential opinion. 5 1 governing the processing of incoming inmate legal mail. Do state prisoners have an interest protected by the First Amendment in being present when their incoming legal mail is opened? We conclude that New Jersey has not shown that its legal mail policy is reasonably related to its interest in protecting the safety and security of its prisons. We will affirm the grant of injunctive relief in Allah and reverse the District Court's summary judgment for the defendants in Jones.2 I. New Jersey regulations governing the Department of Corrections required that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Alleging they were deliberately indifferent to a denial of medical treatment by prison doctors for his medical needs during his incarceration at SCI Mahanoy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. I. Defendants in this case are Prison Superintendent Martin Dragovich and a prison health care administrator. Marva Cerullo.1 Thomas' theory of liability is that Cerullo and Dragovich did nothing to assist Thomas despite allegedly knowing of refusals by prison medical staff to treat Thomas' hepatitis and. Thomas marked as exhibits contemporaneous grievance forms that he had written to Cerullo and other staff stating his belief that (i) prison doctors and the medical staff were not treating his hepatitis 1 Thomas does not challenge on appeal the District Court's grant of summary judgment as to the other defendants originally named in this action. Tylenol and Motrin were inappropriate and contraindicated for hepatitis. The exhibits that were excluded in their entirety and/or limited in their admissibility to impeachment span a period of several months.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Counsel was appointed. The plaintiff class represented by Lawson (hereinafter
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Counsel was appointed. A class The plaintiff class represented by Lawson (hereinafter
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Johnson claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need because they treated his hernia through nonsurgical means. Van Dyke Johnson was convicted of first degree murder in Illinois and was incarcerated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Senior Circuit Judge. *Judge Ervin heard oral argument but died before the en banc decision was filed. A convicted habitual felon who was not at the time nor yet eligible for parole under applicable law. Irving Houston Hawkins was convicted by jury trial in a North Carolina Superior Court of the sale and delivery of cocaine. He was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment on the sale and delivery of cocaine and habitual felon charges and to ten years on the possession with intent to sell cocaine charge. The ten year sentence was to be served. His ensuing confinement in the North Carolina prison system was his fifth in that system. Though this parole eligibility provision was amended later in 1981 to reduce the time of required service before parole eligibility from 75% of sentence to a flat seven years. The amended version was effective only as to offenses committed after July 1. It is therefore undisputed that Hawkins's legally prescribed parole eligibility date remained April 20. Hawkins was. The letter 3 alluded to the possibility that Hawkins
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Argued the case and was on the brief for the defendants appellees. Were on the brief. Is withdrawn and replaced by RESNICK v. The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or requests for amendment will be accepted. I Herman Resnick is an Orthodox Jew who has been incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Lompoc. Dairy products and meat are not allowed to be consumed in the same meal. It is customary to wait at least six hours after consuming meat to eat dairy and at least one hour after drinking milk to eat meat. The general parameters of the CFP are set forth in section seven of Program Statement Number 4700.04 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A. Procedural History Jones Bey is a prisoner at the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility in Munsing. Johnson is a guard at the facility. Trierweiler is the prison's grievance coordinator. None of his claims was sufficient to survive summary judgment. Jones Bey alleges that he was arbitrarily refused his
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 3737 of the slip opinion. P. 41(a)(2) without specifying that he was requesting dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice. Rule 41 provides that orders that fail to specify whether dismissal is with or without prejudice are to be interpreted as dismissals without prejudice. Federal Practice and Procedure § 2367 (2d ed. 1994) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Argued the case and was on the brief for the defendants appellees. Were on the brief. I Herman Resnick is an Orthodox Jew who has been incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Lompoc. The general parameters of the CFP are set forth in section seven of Program Statement Number 4700.04 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hargis was disciplined for violating the coercion regulation when he informed a guard that shaving with a razor blade endangered his safety due to his medical condition and that the guard's actions and statements could come up in pending state court litigation. We are asked to decide two questions: (1) whether there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' application of the coercion regulation in this case violated Hargis's right to free speech and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Hargis's retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims with prejudice. Because the ADA claim was neither alleged nor argued in the district court. We will not consider the ADA claim on this appeal. 721 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that ordinarily this court will not hear issues raised for the first time on appeal). 3731 I. While the case was pending. Beauchamp responded by explaining that he had discussed Hargis's medical problem with the prison medical staff and was told that Hargis had no diagnosed medical condition that would interfere with his ability to shave.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Pearson was just two days away from being transferred out of Tamms Correctional Center. Alleging that the ticket was trumped up to block his transfer from Tamms. Who was then a warden at Tamms. Finding that the ticket was issued to retaliate against Pearson for complaining about conditions at Tamms and for refusing to act as a confidential informant against the Gangster Disciples once he left Tamms. Pearson was transferred to Tamms as a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tocci and Glovsky & Associates were on brief. Was on brief. Circuit Judge. is currently serving two concurrent. Naming as respondents the superintendent of the state correctional facility where he is confined. These appeals have their genesis in events that occurred over a quarter century ago. Is available in Commonwealth v. These consecutive sentences were to be served
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We do not decide whether use of the prior findings at least in some fashion was improper use of judicial notice. We conclude the procedure adopted here was flawed because it did not meet the requirements of our fair notice doctrine. TERHUNE 14715 While appeal of that dismissal was pending. We have discretion to remand a case to the district court for further consideration when new laws likely to influence a decision have become effective during the pendency of an appeal. Whether the PLRA exhaustion requirement is a defense or a pleading requirement is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We adopt the rule of the majority of circuits and hold that it is a defense that must be raised and proved by the defendant. Facts and Procedural Background Wyatt is an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione. Defendants do not dispute that Wyatt's religious beliefs are sincerely held or that dreadlocks are a means of practicing the Rastafarian religion. TERHUNE are not subject to the same regulations.2 Wyatt has been disciplined by prison officials for refusing to comply with the regulations.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2005 is amended to include Judge Fernandez's concurring and dissenting opinion. Arguing that Andrews was not entitled to proceed IFP under the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 17457. Appellee's petition for rehearing/error correction is GRANTED. CANADY 18837 tion for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Was injured by a defective printing press while working at a prison job for which he had voluntarily applied. We further hold that a prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity when he orders a prisoner to continue operating prison work equipment that the official has been warned and has reason to believe is unnecessarily dangerous. Where the underlying facts are disputed. We
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was injured by a defective printing press while working at a prison job for which he had voluntarily applied. We further hold that a prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity when he orders a prisoner to continue operating prison work equipment that the official has been warned and has reason to believe is unnecessarily dangerous. Where the underlying facts are disputed. We
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
EBEL. The district court sua sponte ordered that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We do not decide whether use of the prior findings at least in some fashion was improper use of judicial notice. We conclude the procedure adopted here was flawed because it did not meet the requirements of our fair notice doctrine. TERHUNE 5 While appeal of that dismissal was pending. We have discretion to remand a case to the district court for further consideration when new laws likely to influence a decision have become effective during the pendency of an appeal. Whether the PLRA exhaustion requirement is a defense or a pleading requirement is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We adopt the rule of the majority of circuits and hold that it is a defense that must be raised and proved by the defendant. Facts and Procedural Background Wyatt is an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione. Defendants do not dispute that Wyatt's religious beliefs are sincerely held or that dreadlocks are a means of practicing the Rastafarian religion. TERHUNE are not subject to the same regulations.2 Wyatt has been disciplined by prison officials for refusing to comply with the regulations.
|
|
98-1280 -- BOYCE V. ASHCROFT -- 06/04/2001
Finding that petitioner is not attacking the legality of his custody or seeking release from illegal custody. That such relief is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Petitioner claims that the transfer request was in retaliation for the article. While defendants assert that petitioner was no longer safe at OPH. Petitioner notes that Florence is the most secure federal penitentiary in the United States. Inmates are locked down in single cells 24 hours a day. He is eligible for placement in a half way house in September 2002. Plaintiff argues that defendants have no security or safety reasons to place him in what is essentially solitary confinement at Florence. That defendants are punishing him for exercising his First Amendment rights. Analysis The threshold issue is whether the district court properly found that under 28 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Federal courts have recognized the right of prisoners to relief if prison officials deny them basic medical care. The vehicle for such suits is 42 U.S.C. 1983. The vehicle is not so clear. Some courts have treated such actions as Bivens actions. 403 U.S. 388 (1971).(2) Others have assumed that there exists a non statutory basis for injunctive action. The question arises whether the actions are barred by sovereign immunity. Very often the nature of the claim and the basis for rejecting sovereign immunity are not addressed.(4) We believe clarification would be useful. Assert that the action is barred by sovereign immunity. Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (rejecting federal prisoners' First Amendment challenge to a BOP regulation prohibiting electric instruments).
the case is properly denominated an action for relief in the nature of mandamus. That sovereign immunity is not a bar. That his claims against the Bureau of Prisons are not properly before us. I. Background and Facts Plaintiff Appellant Ron Simmat was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced by the State of Connecticut to life imprisonment in 1962.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hill is serving an eighty four month sentence with the Federal Bureau of Prisons for distribution of cocaine base and from September 29. Was confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence. As required under 28 C.F.R. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The 1983 action in this case is against the named prison officials and not the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who conducted the one year investigation of which he now complains. (2) Mr Hill. Prison officials generally claimed the conditions in administrative detention are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Morrison alleged that defendants refused to consider his request to obtain Native American religious items because he is not of Native American heritage. Inmates are required to specify their claimed religion. The purpose for which each item is used. Why each item is necessary. Whether each item is mandated by their religion. A religious leader of the professed faith is contacted to verify the relevance of and need for the item. Morrison is not a Native American Indian by birth. He is. HEART is not a religion. The majority of its members at GCC are not Native Americans and. That everything has a spirit and is connected.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
J.) dismissing plaintiff's action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that it was not cognizable under Heck v. The case law is clear that when a prisoner's challenge either to the process or the result of a prison disciplinary proceeding necessarily implies the invalidity of a sanction that affects the duration of his sentence. If the procedural defect at issue was critical to the imposition of the sanction) have been overturned through administrative channels or by a state or federal court. It is also clear that when a prisoner's challenge involves a sanction that affects only his conditions of confinement. This
|
|
LAWSON V. SINGLETARY
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Lawson v. Counsel was appointed. The plaintiff class represented by Lawson (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/94-4663.ma2.html">LAWSON V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lawson v. Counsel was appointed. The plaintiff class represented by Lawson (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0047p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this § 1983 action is whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to 15 Michigan corrections officers on duty at various points during the isolation. Here is what happened during the last six days of the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility's custody over Jeffrey Clark. Was on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/973639P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was enacted as part of the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-3177.htm">97-3177 -- DAHLER V. GOODMAN -- 02/19/1998<BR></A><BR>
Because Dahler's suit was filed after the effective date of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). It was processed under that act's filing procedures for in forma pauperis suits by prisoners. <u>See</u> 28 U.S.C.A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1961.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Normally that pairing would have been made by Centralia's placement office. Who was serving the second shift. A pairing that should have lasted only until the placement officers on the day shift could review matters. 2 No. 02 1961 Two days later Garcia sexually assaulted Riccardo. His lead off argument is that Riccardo failed to use his administrative remedies. Rausch contends it was too late (in February 1998. The official handling the grievance must have found good cause. The federal judiciary will not second guess that action. Its main objective was to have Garcia prosecuted. This language is ambiguous. There are two principal ways to reduce the number of sexual assaults in prison: better steps ex ante to separate potential aggressors from potential victims. A prison administration receiving such a grievance should have considered both.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/011564P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court neglected to resolve whether Chad Grady's § 2255 motion was timely filed. Concluding that Grady's constitutional rights were violated when he appeared for two hours before a jury venire panel in jail clothes. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Grady's motion was timely filed. Grady was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute. Grady also indicated that he had provided prison officials with the proper amount of prepaid postage. 2 The government argued that Grady's affidavit should not be credited because it was impossible for a piece of prisoner mail to languish for 17 days (from April 22 until May 9. Malone noted that Grady claimed to have deposited his § 2255 motion in the prison's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6256.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Baughman submitted various requests to staff concerning the dental care he was receiving. Who will respond within fifteen days of receipt of the grievance. The facility head will conduct a final review of the health services administrator's grievance response. He will sign and date the response form. The reviewing authority will have the inmate sign and date the response to acknowledge receipt. Other paperwork will be returned to the inmate with a copy retained by the reviewing authority. If there is no response within thirty days of submission. If more time is required to respond. The inmate will receive written notice. The grievance will be decided within ten working days. This ruling is final. Stated that the first grievance was responded to. May not have been returned to Mr. Since the original was still in prison files. Although the first grievance was denied on October 8. It too was denied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0279p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that it was not clearly established that 1) a prisoner engages in protected conduct when he complains about a prison officer's failure to perform his duties to the officer's supervisor. I. The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Defendant Barlow qualified immunity. For purposes of determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. If the violation is made out. The next sequential step is to ask whether the violation involved a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. Siggers El was incarcerated at the Mound Correctional Facility in Detroit. Barlow asked whether Siggers El's attorney was black. If she was a part of his religious organization. You would probably have a better chance with a white lawyer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/96-3026.man.html">MITCHELL V. FARCASS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mitchell v. Asking him to explain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-3026.man.html">MITCHELL V. FARCASS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mitchell v. Asking him to explain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013064.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Louis Napier was actually John Napier. John Napier is actually Louis's brother. The charge eventually was nolle prossed. He was not entitled to bring the action under the dictates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Standard of Review We review for abuse of discretion a district judge's decision that an in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Bilal 1 The relevant part of that statute states: [T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue. Or (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious. Or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 3 v. An action is frivolous if it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/023653p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is the appeal by prisoners from the order of the District Court granting summary judgment to prison officials and employees as to the prisoners' claims that their constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion and equal protection have been violated by the prison's failure to provide them with meals they contend are required by their religious beliefs. All of whom are either former or current NJSP officials. The crux of Prisoners' claims is that the Prison Officials violated their constitutional rights by failing to provide them with Halal meat meals in conformity with their religious beliefs. Meat from herbivorous animals such as cows and chickens that are properly slaughtered. The opposite of Halal food is Haram food. Which is prohibited or unlawful and includes pork and meat from carnivorous animals. Halal foods can become contaminated if they are commingled with Haram items. The different diets provided by the NJSP fall into four general categories: (1) a regular meal which is served to approximately 600 inmates.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513065.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal by James V. Which led to his death while he was incarcerated at FSP.2 While Crosby was the warden of FSP. Valdes was a death row inmate housed on X wing. Where inmates with the most serious disciplinary problems were assigned. Sitting by designation. 1 * FSP is a Florida state maximum security facility. Some of whom were involved in the beating of Valdes. That Crosby was deliberately indifferent to the risk of abuse. Crosby moved for summary judgment on the grounds that he was entitled to qualified immunity. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL While the general rule is that a denial of summary judgment is not ordinarily subject to immediate appellate review because it is not an appealable final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul13/03-60529-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to the magistrate judge. Arguing that this court was without jurisdiction because the order from which MDOC appeals was inherently tentative. The order from which MDOC appeals is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-1492.htm">02-1492 -- STEELE V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS -- 12/29/2003<BR></A><BR>
Steele was taken from his cell and placed in the special housing unit at the United States Penitentiary in Florence. Steele's belongings were missing. He asserted that the grievance procedure is generally inaccessible to inmates because the mandatory first step requires cooperation of a staff member. The administrative review by correction officials is intended
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-6213.opa.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Onishea v. Which consists of Alabama inmates who are HIV positive (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-6213.opa.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Onishea v. Which consists of Alabama inmates who are HIV positive (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-15959.op2.html">SKRTICH V. THORNTON (1/29/2002, NO. 00-15959)<BR></A><BR>
Skrtich sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was subjected to an excessive and unjustified use of force while incarcerated at Florida State Prison. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence before the court demonstrates that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/997F1ECF5E6740C788256EAF0053D8EF/$file/0235550.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
White is not challenging the validity of his state court conviction. Was in violation of both the United States and Washington constitutions. After rejecting the State of Washington's argument that jurisdiction was proper only under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Reasoning that a COA was not necessary when a petitioner seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. White's appeal raises several issues that we have not previously addressed concerning the proper jurisdictional statute and procedural requirements for a state prisoner attacking the legality of his detention resulting from an administrative decision by state prison authorities. The circuits that have addressed these issues are divided on whether jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or under § 2254. On whether a COA is required. Which is properly understood as a general grant of habeas authority that provides federal court jurisdiction to a state prisoner when that prisoner is not in custody pursuant to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-15959.opn.html">SKRTICH V. THORNTON (10/2/2001, NO. 00-15959)<BR></A><BR>
Skrtich under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was subjected to an excessive and unjustified use of force while incarcerated at Florida State Prison. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence before the court demonstrates that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015959.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Skrtich under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was subjected to an excessive and unjustified use of force while incarcerated at Florida State Prison. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence before the court demonstrates that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-15959.opn.html">SKRTICH V. THORNTON (10/2/2001, NO. 00-15959)<BR></A><BR>
Skrtich under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was subjected to an excessive and unjustified use of force while incarcerated at Florida State Prison. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence before the court demonstrates that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015959.op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Skrtich sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was subjected to an excessive and unjustified use of force while incarcerated at Florida State Prison. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence before the court demonstrates that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-15959.op2.html">SKRTICH V. THORNTON (1/29/2002, NO. 00-15959)<BR></A><BR>
Skrtich sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was subjected to an excessive and unjustified use of force while incarcerated at Florida State Prison. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence before the court demonstrates that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1921p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether two Jewish inmates detained in the Pennsylvania prison system have a constitutional right to hot kosher meals provided to them at the Commonwealth's expense. 2 As inmates at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute in Somerset (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/951105P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Nebraska State Penitentiary (NSP) is forced to house many of its prisoners two men to a cell. While this practice is not a per se constitutional violation. The plaintiffs crossappeal the portion of the order applicable to long term inmates and the District Court's holding that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. The plaintiffs in this case are the class of inmates housed or to be housed in the four main housing units of the Nebraska State Penitentiary.3 They brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A fifth main housing unit was erected while this case was pending. 33 2 1 First. They contend that the policy of holding both inmates responsible 4 for contraband found in a double cell violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. was held. The manner in which the defendants were conducting that practice did. Is a maximum It are that Units one through four. The main in this case. prison The cells We will recount those findings here only to the extent necessary for our review. security prison.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-5201.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While this case was pending in district court. An Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision involving another prisoner made clear that the 155 credit subtraction was unlawful. Warnick contends that the 155 credit subtraction and the 53 credit offset were unconstitutional on various grounds. His challenges to the 155 credit subtraction are moot because the prison has corrected the error. He was eventually released. He was convicted on new charges of lewd molestation and sexual abuse of a minor. He was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for each of these offenses. His probation was revoked and he was ordered to serve six years' further imprisonment on his 1989 conviction. The six year term was to be served before the 20 year sentences. The number of credits that an inmate earns each month is determined by his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/96-3428.man.html">BASS V. PERRIN (4/1/1999, NO. 96-3428)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that those practices are within the limits established by the United States Constitution.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Frankie Lee Bass and Leonard Bean are inmates at the Florida State Prison in Starke.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/96-3428.man.html">BASS V. PERRIN (4/1/1999, NO. 96-3428)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that those practices are within the limits established by the United States Constitution.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Frankie Lee Bass and Leonard Bean are inmates at the Florida State Prison in Starke.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/860159561E830C2588256EAC00570CA0/$file/9955265.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming he was denied equal protection because. He was not allowed to resume his prison job until after similarly situated inmates of other races. 7294 WALKER v. Jamel Walker is serving a life sentence in the custody of the California Department of Corrections. The prison is made up of four separate facilities or yards A. Walker is housed in Facility A. Walker was assigned to be a clerk in the Facility A Law Library. He was initially paid at an hourly rate of nineteen cents. He now earns the maximum rate of thirty two cents and is Lead Law Library Clerk. Walker asserts that he is not and never has been a gang member. Several Hispanic and black inmates were involved in a fight. As a result of which the prison was placed on lockdown. All prisoners were restricted to their cells and not permitted to exercise. Only Hispanic and black inmates were also excluded from the critical workers list a category of workers approved to continue attending their job assignments despite the lockdown. Walker was not permitted to return to his library assignment until June 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/96-3752.man.html">ALEXANDER V. HAWK (11/5/1998, NO. 96-3752)<BR></A><BR>
Brought suit against prison officials claiming that their enforcement of new federal legislation restricting prisoners' access to magazines which are sexually explicit or feature nudity violates his First Amendment rights. The Federal Bureau of Prisons' (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/96-3752.man.html">ALEXANDER V. HAWK (11/5/1998, NO. 96-3752)<BR></A><BR>
Brought suit against prison officials claiming that their enforcement of new federal legislation restricting prisoners' access to magazines which are sexually explicit or feature nudity violates his First Amendment rights. The Federal Bureau of Prisons' (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/987853.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He asserts that his transfer from Patuxent to the general prison population in the DOC deprived him of a state created liberty interest in remaining at Patuxent and receiving its treatment programs that is protected by the Due Process Clause. We agree with the district court that Walsh was not deprived of a state created liberty interest. John Walsh was convicted. He was committed to Patuxent. 2 a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8024.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Miki Ann DiMarco lived her life as a woman even though she was anatomically male. It was only during a routine prison intake examination that prison officials learned DiMarco was a hermaphrodite Because the officials believed that she presented a safety risk. DiMarco was placed in administrative segregation apart from the rest of the prison population. Her confinement was reviewed every ninety days. The issue is whether Wyoming had a constitutional duty to provide her an opportunity to challenge the placement and conditions of confinement under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Because we conclude DiMarco does not have a liberty interest in her placement and the conditions of confinement. DiMarco pleaded guilty to check fraud in Wyoming and was placed on probation. She was temporarily committed to a county jail in Laramie. Where she was housed with the general female population. Officials realized she was anatomically male. Where higher risk inmates are housed. New prisoners are routinely housed separately from the general prison population for about one month in Pod 2 while prison officials determine appropriate housing assignments.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CBC4AEEB13576BE38825704D0056DA21/$file/0455879.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts here are undisputed by the parties. Billy Soza Warsoldier is a Cahuilla Native American. He further believes that if he were to cut his hair. The deceased members of his tribe will subject him to taunting and ridicule. Warsoldier was an inmate at California's Adelanto Community Correctional Facility (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/022047.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board is the only named party electing to participate in this appeal. A. Pre 1996 Parole Considerations in Pennsylvania Thomas is currently serving a life sentence for the 1964 rape and murder of a 12 year old girl in Philadelphia. He was again convicted.3 His second conviction was upheld by the 2. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability is required before appeal by a habeas petitioner will be heard. A certificate of appealability was issued by the District Court. Thus our jurisdiction is proper. Although it appears state court recourse was exhausted by an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That case is not part of this record. Exhaustion is not jurisdictional and is waivable. Exhaustion is deemed waived. The relevant facts in the case before us are largely undisputed. Our review of the District Court is plenary. 3. The first conviction was rejected because the prosecution's lead witness. Was found to have falsified her credentials and to have perjured herself in another case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/014345.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Prison or correctional facility may not bring any action under any federal law with respect to prison conditions
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001132P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who at all relevant times was a corrections officer at the Moberly Correctional Center (MCC) in Moberly. Charrier was ordered to pay Foulk one dollar in nominal damages plus interest and costs. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notices of appeal were timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background Factual history The following summary of underlying facts is based upon the evidence presented at trial. Foulk was seen by Dr. Foulk was admitted to the infirmary. When he was awoken by corrections officer Shawn Bates. Who told Foulk it was time to eat. Foulk told Bates that he was not hungry and wanted to be left alone. Foulk was again awoken and told to eat. Foulk was again awoken by 3 corrections officers. He was still feeling the effects of the medication and once again fell back asleep. Foulk was not offered medical assistance. He was put into solitary confinement in a cell that had no running water and only dry paper towels to wipe his face.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/982707P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rouse was convicted of second degree murder in Iowa and incarcerated there. He was transferred to the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater on March 31. Because some complaints were incomprehensible. Because it threatens prison security in the event an inmate is dissatisfied with a hired inmate's work product. Rouse indicated he was generally dissatisfied with his placement at Stillwater. While the transfer request was being processed. Rouse was transferred to the Iowa Department of Corrections on October 27. Benson's only involvement in the transfer was to sign the paperwork. Rouse was acting as a behind the scenes agitator. Whether these gatherings related to Native American spiritual practices or whether they were simply social. Security reasons prohibit inmates from congregating in the cell halls. 3 Lanz has continued to maintain that although Rouse claims to have drafted the initial complaint in an action brought by other inmates against prison officials entitled Chambers. Lanz was not aware of this lawsuit at the time the September 26.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11ACF38A90BE6ED388256C3F005148DE/$file/0055182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McQuillion alleges that his due process rights were violated when the California Board of Prison Terms. The parole scheme in California under which McQuillion was given his parole date in 1979 gave rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest. The process that is due before a prisoner can be deprived of such an interest is a showing that there is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7064.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Before PORFILIO. BACKGROUND The following is undisputed. Steffey was incarcerated at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) at all times relevant to this appeal. When there is reason to believe that an inmate. Is attempting tocircumvent facility rules by transferring funds to another inmate. The incoming money orders will be held until a thorough investigation has been conducted. The money orders will be considered contraband and will not be returned to the sender. In the event a money order is confiscated as contraband. The intended recipient inmate and the sender will be notified in writing of the action by the person who stopped the transfer. The funds were never deposited into Mr. Nor were they returned to Ms. The district court dismissed the complaint against the ODOC and the individual defendants in their official capacities because these defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The only remaining defendant(2) was David Orman.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2385.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 13. Was essentially a litigation document and did not suggest that Washburn had any personal involvement in making the decision to deny credit to Beauchamp. It is questionable whether either the arguments made in the state's brief or the Washburn affidavit amount to anything more than a kind of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0391p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ruling that its procedural due process holding was not disturbed by the Supreme Court's decision. At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to dissolve its injunctive order in light of Overton. We hold that the district court abused its discretion because its procedural due process ruling is inconsistent with Overton. Our reversal is without prejudice to any claim by an individual prisoner that the regulation. The regulations authorize the Director of the MDOC to restrict permanently all visits for a prisoner who is found guilty administratively of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0454a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ruling that its procedural due process holding was not disturbed by the Supreme Court's decision. At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to dissolve its injunctive order in light of Overton. We hold that the district court abused its discretion because its procedural due process ruling is inconsistent with Overton. Our reversal is without prejudice to any claim by an individual prisoner that the regulation. The regulations authorize the Director of the MDOC to restrict permanently all visits for a prisoner who is found guilty administratively of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B0C4DE16989259F88256EE1007AB883/$file/0499003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is scheduled to be executed on August 12. I Terry Dennis was charged with first degree murder in the Nevada state district court in Washoe County on March 29. Was evaluated by a psychiatrist. Was determined to be competent to stand trial. Was able to assist in his own defense. The court found that Dennis was competent to enter a guilty plea. Evidence was presented that Dennis suffered from mental illness including bipolar disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder that he had a long history of suicide attempts. Butko was appointed as habeas counsel on April 25. Before his appeal was heard. The letter to the Nevada A detailed description of the crime is found in the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion affirming Dennis's conviction and sentence. Butko is doing all she can to delay things hoping I'll change my mind but I've been thinking this over for quite some time now and I assure you my mind's made up and I know what I'm doing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1831.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Woodworth & Evarts LLP were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees Dubois and Matesanz. LLP were on brief for appellee AT&T Corp. Gilday was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. For which he is now serving concurrent life sentences at the Bay State Correctional Center in Norfolk. The relevant facts are related in the light most favorable to Gilday. Gilday alleged that federal and state officials were opening his prison mail and intercepting his telephone communications in a coordinated effort to gather information regarding others involved in the Brighton bank robbery. It is hereby ORDERED. Employees and attorneys of the Department of Correction are enjoined permanently. As they have been amended or may be amended Around the same time. Gilday proceeded with the action against the nonsettling DOC officials. 3 and as they have been construed or may be construed in reported decisions that are binding in this Court or in the state courts of Massachusetts. 2. [mail restrictions] 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/99-1055.htm">99-1055 -- BLUM V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS -- 08/23/1999<BR></A><BR>
Blum raised five claims to establish that his sentence was enhanced without due process of law by prison officials in two related disciplinary hearings. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because (1) he was proceeding <u>in forma pauperis</u>. Was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing of escape from a secure institution and possession. Blum was again found guilty of the disciplinary charges against him. Was punished with disciplinary segregation for ninety days. 1998 because his conviction was not supported by evidence in the record. Blum was convicted at that rehearing and his subsequent segregation. Transfer were sanctions imposed as a result of the second hearing. Even if there were due process violations at the February 12. We would have no basis for overturning Blum's conviction at his May 5. Because his May 5 rehearing was not held within a reasonable time after it was ordered on March 31. Blum compares his case to <u>Hewitt</u> and asserts a due process violation occurred because prison officials violated regulations in holding his rehearing nearly five weeks after it was ordered.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013064ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. 2 BARKETT. This unjustified expansion of § 1997e(e) to prevent prisoners from seeking remedies for violations that predate and have no relation to the events leading to their current incarceration finds little support in the language. I 3 believe that en banc review of the panel's decision is warranted to reconsider the appropriate reach of § 1997e(e). Or History of the PLRA The starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself. When the meaning of a statute is unambiguous. There is no need to examine legislative history. Since
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/98-08727.man.html">BROWN V. SIKES (5/25/2000, NO. 98-08727)<BR></A><BR>
Who was then Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Which was enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/98-08727.man.html">BROWN V. SIKES (5/25/2000, NO. 98-08727)<BR></A><BR>
Who was then Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Which was enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-4119_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the second time we have considered Wisconsin inmate1 Donald Greeno's Eighth Amendment claim against numerous Wisconsin Department of Corrections' employees. Greeno's claim is premised on the prison employees' failure to adequately respond to his vomiting and severe heartburn. Symptoms that appeared in Although Greeno was incarcerated within the Wisconsin Department of Corrections at all times relevant to this appeal. A recent search of the Department's web site reveals that he has been released and is currently
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/041922P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
21 U.S.C. § 881) while he was incarcerated. Nunley using a method that was reasonably calculated to reach him and. Perhaps (the complaint is not clear). That the few forfeiture notices that he did receive were defective because they did not inform him that an indigent person need not post a bond to contest a forfeiture. Nunley at both the jail where he was being held and his erstwhile residence. The notices sent to the jail were signed for by one or another employee of the sheriff's office for the county in which the jail is situated. She was his girlfriendcum roommate at the time of his arrest and became his wife around the time that the 2 forfeitures were taking place (the exact time is not relevant). Nunley still lived at the residence at the time that the notices were sent there to Mr. No objections to the forfeitures were filed. The court did not base its summary judgment decision on the notices sent directly to the jail because it concluded that there were questions of fact about the operation of the jail's mail distribution practices with respect to these notices.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-2868.man.html">RIVERA V. ALLIN (6/23/1998, NO. 97-2868)<BR></A><BR>
That is. DISCUSSION</CENTER> </P> <P> Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914(a) (West Supp.1998). By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof.</P> <P>28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1994).</P> <P> On April 26. 385 (5th Cir.1996) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-2868.man.html">RIVERA V. ALLIN (6/23/1998, NO. 97-2868)<BR></A><BR>
That is. DISCUSSION</CENTER> </P> <P> Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914(a) (West Supp.1998). By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof.</P> <P>28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1994).</P> <P> On April 26. 385 (5th Cir.1996) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/c883ccb34dcecfb888256e5a00707d5d/$FILE/0015132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C883CCB34DCECFB888256E5A00707D5D/$file/0015132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/32ceecd24573adbd88256b12005f31ee/$FILE/0015132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32CEECD24573ADBD88256B12005F31EE/$file/0015132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0050_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before defendants were served. He was and remains in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). The following are the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-5387a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-3062.man.html">HAKIM V. HICKS (8/4/2000, NO. 98-3062)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-3062.man.html">HAKIM V. HICKS (8/4/2000, NO. 98-3062)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0832n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of whom are employees with the Michigan Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/972828P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is filed int its stead. Was directed to respond to the petition. Sitting by designation. 1 response was filed. The PLRA was enacted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027086.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Taylor were deliberately indifferent to his safety. The defendants knew the inmates intended to kill or seriously injure him and the defendants even watched as these inmates worked for at least forty five minutes to break into an outdoor recreational cage in which Odom was being held. Inmates were moved from their cells to outdoor. As he was being moved from his cell. Odom warned Powell that a group of fellow inmates would kill him if he were put in an area ODOM v. When Odom told Powell repeatedly that he if he was put
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/876CC9D98DF1013588257296000F46F7/$file/0515275.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted relief after finding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the California Board of Prison Term's decision to deem Irons ineligible for parole in 2001. Irons was convicted of second degree murder in the death of his former housemate and sentenced to seventeen years to life in prison. Irons was living in the home of a couple. The couple suspected that Nicholson was dealing drugs and was stealing from them. After Nicholson complained that he was in pain. He was subsequently convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to seventeen years to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Has received positive evaluations from the psychologists and counselors who have examined and treated him. Even members of the Board have commented that Irons has
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED625DD354AA06128825731700548D0D/$file/0515275.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. Insert
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1947p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Mumia Abu Jamal was convicted of murdering a Philadelphia police officer and is currently on death row at the State Correctional Institute at Greene. Jamal alleges that this rule is unconstitutional and that the Department used this rule as a pretext to retaliate against him for the content of his writings. Jamal was serving a prison disciplinary sentence for engaging in the profession of journalism at S.C.I. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings and the Department's decision to open Jamal's mail were not motivated by retaliation for Jamal's writings. The district court found that the Department's justifications for denying media access to Jamal were not credible. Concluded that this action was clearly retaliatory. This order is not challenged on appeal. 3 We conclude that Jamal has a reasonable probability of demonstrating that the Department's actions violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. That Jamal has demonstrated that he will be subject to irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972868.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is. DISCUSSION Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof. The same is generally true of the Supreme Court. 385 (5th Cir.1996) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D045400FB5305A1882571E7007FAA71/$file/0316702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: May a state department of corrections be held liable for prison officials' failure to correct a hostile work environment that is the result of male prisoners' sexual harassment of female guards? Freitag alleged that the CDCR and Pelican Bay were delinquent in addressing the sexually hostile environment created by prison inmates particularly in confronting the pervasive practice at Pelican Bay of inmate exhibitionist masturbation directed at female officers and that she was retaliated against and ultimately terminated due to her repeated complaints regarding the problem. Inmates in the SHU are subjected to harsher and more restrictive conditions than exist at any other prison in the state system.1 On September 12. Freitag was working a relief shift in the SHU control tower when she witnessed Inmate X standing naked in the exercise yard masturbating. Freitag was instructed by her direct supervisor not to document the incident. Which are placed in inmates' central files but ordinarily do not form the basis for disciplinary action.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993603.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Russell Shoats is currently imprisoned in the State Correctional Institution at Greene. Have kept him in administrative custody in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. We will affirm. Shoats was convicted of first degree murder for his part in an attack on a Philadelphia police guardhouse. 2 Shoats participated in the attack as a member of a black revolutionary group that sought to eradicate all authority. One police officer was killed and another seriously wounded in the attack. Shoats was sentenced to life imprisonment. Two of the inmates were captured immediately and a third was killed during the escape. Shoats remained at large until he was captured in October 1977. While Shoats was a fugitive. Shoats was captured. He was later transferred to Fairview State Hospital for the criminally insane. Of causing disruptions at the institutions in which he is incarcerated. Pennsylvania correctional institutions have two basic types of housing. General population inmates are permitted to have contact visits at least one day per week.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3690C26EE778E288825721A007B5E85/$file/0316702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. Attempted to address the conduct of only one of the 20 inmates who were responsible for 56 incidents of exhibitionist masturbation in the security housing unit. The jury heard the Inspector General's findings that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC5E6D954ACAB6EA88256AAA007E1D83/$file/9835468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is incarcerated. Which states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3A3DC7887DDF73E88256E5A00707C5B/$file/9835468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is incarcerated. Which states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1500_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that summary judgment on his cell conditions claims was inappropriate. Although Thornton maintains the district court's decision to conduct the trial of the yard exercise claim by videoconference was erroneous. I. BACKGROUND Rodger Thornton is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections serving a life sentence. The grievance stated in part: This seg cell north 106 is in very poor shape. There is 2 to 3 inches of water on the floor. The water that comes from the sink is discolored it looks like rust water. The conditions of this mattress sir is so bad that there is no way that I can or will sleep on it. Thornton was furnished with a satisfactory mattress on May 11. Sir please help this is just not right at all. . . . Where Thornton was incarcerated at the time. Testified under oath that Thornton was serving a life sentence. Was classified as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BA2737D297E5771088256FA50004C8CD/$file/0217440.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that Andrews was not entitled to proceed IFP under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0971p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is one of a group of appeals by the City of Philadelphia and its officials responsible for the operation of the Philadelphia Prison System (referred to collectively as City of Philadelphia) from orders of the district court holding it in contempt and imposing fines or stipulated penalties because of its failure to comply with various provisions of consent decrees or related orders designed to ameliorate the overcrowded conditions in the Philadelphia prison system. This appeal is from the finding of contempt and the imposition of a $106. I. BACKGROUND The facts underlying these cases are set forth in detail in Harris V. The plaintiff class of inmates in the Philadelphia prison system and the City entered into a Consent Decree approved by the district court (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-8003.htm">99-8003 -- DESPAIN V. UPHOFF -- 07/10/2001<BR></A><BR>
DeSpain was housed. <p> The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding that Mr. DeSpain's claims for money damages against defendant prison officials in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The judge further concluded that injunctive and declaratory relief was improper because Mr. DeSpain had failed to show the events at issue were susceptible to repetition. The magistrate judge determined these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that Mr. DeSpain challenges only the district court's ruling that defendants Ruettgers and Bustos are entitled to qualified immunity based on the court's conclusion that. 1983 unless their conduct violates 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1405.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Plaintiff Appellant Ronald Fogle. As Fogle was granted in forma pauperis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021047p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The gravamen of Cochran's complaint is that while an inmate at two penal institutions of the State. The Court was very specific in limiting its holding to cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts. Indicating that an individual analysis would have to be performed for subsequent The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because Cochran brought a claim under the ADA. We are persuaded that a different scenario is present here. To determine when Eleventh Amendment Immunity will permit suits for money damages against state agencies. Lane is not applicable to these facts. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Is a legally blind inmate currently incarcerated in South Woods in Bridgeton. Cochran is serving a life sentence for murder and robbery. Cochran was transferred from the Florida prison system to the custody of the New Jersey DOC. He was suffering from end stage glaucoma and was legally blind. Cochran was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/002479.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by Barry Whetzel. A YDC employee who was working as a youth development aide at the time he committed the assaults. Whetzel was eventually convicted of criminal charges arising out of these incidents.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BA9C8DD0B7441A8A88256FEE0056FFC8/$file/0315335.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. ***Judge Wardlaw was drawn to replace Judge Michael Daly Hawkins on the panel. Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip op. at 11715. Lines 15 16: Delete
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988727.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was then Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Which was enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/98-3005.htm">98-3005 -- PERKINS V. KANSAS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 01/28/1999<BR></A><BR>
A pro se prisoner who is HIV positive. The dismissal occurred before the complaint was served on defendants. Which was added to the statute as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/951565P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Ernest Smith and John Stewart were both inmates at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. While they were asleep in their beds. They were brutally stabbed by fellow inmate Robert Lewis. Smith was seriously injured. These inmates were all incarcerated together in Barracks No. 8. Inmates in the open barracks are free to move about the entire room. Sitting by designation. 3 No. 8 housed 86 general population inmates at the time of this incident and was not staffed with a correctional officer inside the room. Barracks Nos. 5 and 6 are similarly organized and similarly lack the presence of a supervising correctional officer inside them. Contending that the prison officials were not complying with the requirements imposed in a prior case. Who was a current resident of the Cummins Unit. The district court determined that Rudd was not entitled to a jury trial on his equitable claim for an injunction and held a five day bench trial. The district court also determined that the prison officials were inadequately staffing the open barracks and had done nothing to alleviate the dangers posed by this shortcoming.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B878A5CBD16BBA8988257186004C165A/$file/0456733.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is a Spanish speaker. Mendoza contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because the lack of Spanish language assistance was an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control that made it impossible to file a timely petition. He contends that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether equitable tolling was appropriate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We agree that an evidentiary hearing is required because Mendoza has alleged facts which. It is true that Mendoza does not make an outright. That fact is easily and reasonably inferred from the statements he does make. Mendoza states in his declaration that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5103a.html">LOUIS JACKSON V. DC<BR></A><BR>
Desmond Hogan argued the cause for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032372p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL T. We will reverse and remand for an appropriate due process analysis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052351p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the DOC is unable to show that its ten book policy is the least restrictive means to further its compelling governmental interest in the safety and health of prisoners and prison employees. We will reverse the District Court's order dismissing Washington's RLUIPA claim and remand with instructions to consider whether any factual issues remain when that claim is evaluated under the proper legal standard. I. Henry Unseld Washington is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania DOC who has attempted to practice his religion while incarcerated. Washington's Church states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11A5A9C2F4F4DCEF88256EF40081E27E/$file/0315335.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. ***Judge Wardlaw was drawn to replace Judge Michael Daly Hawkins on the panel. Could have imagined: Do the exhaustive efforts of an incarcerated prisoner to remedy myriad violations of his First Amendment rights demonstrate that his First Amendment rights were not violated at all? I Kavin Maurice Rhodes is currently imprisoned at California State Prison. Alleging that they repeatedly retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights when he was previously incarcerated there.1 Because this appeal arises from the district court's decision to grant the officers' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. His grievance was summarily denied. Liberally quoting his words and retaining his emphases. 2 Robinson ultimately defended his actions by citing CCI operational procedures stating that inmates were limited to possession of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-7027a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Interim Corporation Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Spitzer were on the brief. District of Columbia were argued on the same day and before the same panel because they raise similar issues. Or on the alternative grounds that Brown should have brought this action as a habeas corpus petition or that Brown has received all the process that was due him. Is an official of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. He is not named as a defendant in Brown's second amended complaint. Which is the complaint that is at issue in this appeal. He was. The defendants named in the present complaint include the District of Columbia and a number of other D.C. prison officials. court to decide the narrow factual issues relating to whether Brown received all the process he was due. A copy of this report was given to Brown. Brown was notified that a hearing of the Adjustment Board (Lorton's disciplinary body) would occur on October 16 on the charge of Threatening Conduct and on a charge of Possession of Major Contraband (the weapon).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1568ORD.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kelly</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. The judgment of the district court is affirmed by an equally divided court. All of whom were arrested in Rhode Island for non violent. Were subjected to unconstitutional searches of their persons incident to their detention at the Adult Correctional Institutions (the ACI). Because the State is immune from suits for damages under section 1983. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/001492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted in Arkansas state court in 1979 of the capital felony murder of Mary Lou York. He was sentenced to death for the murder and to life imprisonment for the robbery. Singleton's conviction and sentence for capital felony murder were affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in November 1981. The aggravated robbery conviction and sentence were vacated on double jeopardy grounds. That (1) he was not competent to be executed under Ford v. (2) he was denied his constitutional right to a jury selected from a venire representing a fair cross section of the community where he was tried. (3) he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Holding that Singleton's death sentence was invalid under the Eighth Amendment because the State had relied on an invalid aggravating factor. The court held that pecuniary gain was not a valid aggravating factor because it was also an element of the robberymurder charge. The Arkansas death penalty statute was unconstitutional. Singleton filed an action in state court claiming he was incompetent to be executed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512515.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the grounds that they were immune from suit on the basis of qualified immunity. Other FSP employees who were voluntarily dismissed before trial.2 While Crosby was the warden of FSP. Mathews was transferred to FSP and housed on X wing. Where inmates with the most serious disciplinary problems were assigned. That they violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by subjecting him to a series of attacks in which excessive and unjustified force was used. Sitting by designation. 1 * FSP is a Florida state maximum security facility. Steve Dobbs. 2 2 propensity for violence against inmates at FSP especially by certain corrections officers who were involved in the beatings of Mathews but that Crosby was deliberately indifferent to the risk of abuse and deliberately indifferent to Mathews' serious medical needs. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence before the court demonstrates that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988265.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/991062.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Luis Fuentes appeals a judgment that was entered for the defendant corrections officers and prison officials in this suit under 42 U. The suit arose from an incident that occurred in the Berks County Prison where Fuentes was detained while awaiting sentencing on outstanding federal charges. Fuentes was granted in forma pauperis status. False imprisonment.2 Cross motions for summary judgment were eventually filed. Fuentes' post trial motions were denied. This appeal followed. 3 We will affirm. Fuentes was being housed in the behavioral adjustment unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/98-8265.opn.html">CAMPBELL V. SIKES (3/19/1999, NO. 98-8265)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/98-8265.opn.html">CAMPBELL V. SIKES (3/19/1999, NO. 98-8265)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988265.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7064a.html">SCOTT BENJAMIN W. V. DC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6278.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant John Kenneth Boutwell was denied placement into Oklahoma's Pre Parole Conditional Supervision (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/976214.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(1) the evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite subjective culpability of the correctional officers. The A Wing Segregation Tier is a special tier reserved for inmates who have committed disciplinary violations. The activities of the extraction team were to be. In fact were. Steven Stanley was first on the list. He was also the oldest inmate in the tier and was looked up to by the others. Stanley was housed in the A Wing because of a disciplinary infraction. Two of the ringleaders were particularly uncooperative. He was uncooperative and expressed anger toward the officers. They then escorted him to the isolation cell where they intended to remove the steel handcuffs and replace them with flexible plastic handcuffs which were more secure. The videotape shows two officers escorting Stanley to the bottom tier where the isolation cell is located. Stanley testified that during this brief instant when he was not on camera. I was telling [the officers] that I don't care nothing about them grabbing on me.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-13846.opn.html">FARROW V. WEST (2/7/2003, NO. 01-13846)<BR></A><BR>
Farrow was an inmate in the Alabama prison system. West extracted some of Farrow's teeth.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-13846.opn.html">FARROW V. WEST (2/7/2003, NO. 01-13846)<BR></A><BR>
Farrow was an inmate in the Alabama prison system. West extracted some of Farrow's teeth.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3218.htm">00-3218 -- PURKEY V. GREEN -- 08/17/2001<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Wesley I. Purkey raises fifteen issues in a distended brief that is difficult to follow. We have regrouped the claims into (A) two claims alleging denial of access to courts. Purkey's claims that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. Purkey's claims that his right to access to courts was unconstitutionally violated. 1915A for failure to state a claim is subject to de novo review.<em> Perkins v. 604 (6th Cir. 1997) (determining that dismissals under either section should be reviewed de novo). <p> Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend. In determining whether dismissal is proper. The complaint</strong></center> <p> Plaintiff was incarcerated as a pre trial detainee at Wyandotte County Jail at the time the alleged incidents occurred.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211072.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND 2 Appellant is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford. Appellant was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing of disorderly conduct and was given 30 days' disciplinary confinement. The district court expressed the view that the petition was not properly brought under § 2254 because the length of Appellant's custody was not increased by the disciplinary proceeding. Appellant was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing of disobeying a correctional officer's verbal order and was given 30 days' disciplinary confinement. The first issue set out in the COA asked: Are appellant's claims. We are faced with the threshold issue of whether Appellant's petition was moot when filed. It is not contested that. Appellant has not shown that the disciplinary proceeding will affect the length of his confinement.1 Appellant contends the disciplinary proceeding may increase the length of his imprisonment in that it could affect his release date under the Florida control release statute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-8899.man.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (9/30/1999, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-8899.man.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (9/30/1999, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7102.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that prison officials (1) violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and (2) were deliberately indifferent to racism in the prison. A prisoner who was. Was transferred to a different prison. Smith was at risk for attack. One
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-5085.htm">01-5085 -- SMITH V. COCHRAN -- 08/12/2003<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111314.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant pled nolo contendere in Florida state court to second degree murder and was sentenced to 85 years' imprisonment. Appellant was extradited to Florida to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Concluding Appellant was procedurally barred from relitigating issues that had already been raised in his mandamus petition and denying Appellant's remaining claims on the merits. Since he alleges he is in custody pursuant to a state judgment in violation of his constitutional rights. His appropriate avenue for relief is under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-5103a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jonathan L. With him on the brief were Robert R. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Use of ... force/restraints is authorized in order to bring the inmate into compliance with grooming standards.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2273c.htm">02-2273C -- U.S. V. CEBALLOS-MARTINEZ -- 02/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
The court called for an en banc poll. <p> The petition for rehearing was transmitted to the en banc court. Which is composed of all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. Is denied. Join. <p> <strong> </strong>The issue addressed in the panel opinion is whether Defendant satisfied the prison mailbox rule by depositing his notice of appeal with the prison mail system by September . It is uncontested that he did. The government does not dispute that the notice of appeal was mailed by the prison in an envelope postmarked September 24. The notice is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. I can think of no reason why the drafters of Rule 4(c)(1) would have used
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113846.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Farrow's claim is that Dr. Is liable for the conduct of Dr. The problem for Farrow is that there is no respondeat superior liability for a § 1983 claim. Farrow was an inmate in the Alabama prison system. Farrow then was released from prison in the first part of 1996. He was incarcerated before being able to do so. Farrow was given a physical and a dental examination on June 12. Was informed he would have to wait until after he was transferred to another correctional facility. Farrow was then sent to Bullock Correctional Facility where he made an appointment to see a dentist. Farrow was transferred on July 9. West was a dentist.3 1. Farrow was placed on the denture list at Easterling. Farrow explained his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/03-1309.htm">03-1309 -- SCOTT V. CASE MANAGER OWENS (SCF) -- 11/07/2003<BR></A><BR>
We agree that Scott's claims are frivolous and AFFIRM.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzNjQtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6364-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we find that special circumstances justified Brownell's failure to exhaust and that administrative remedies are no longer available to him. Brownell was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/78E52045641F669F88256C39005399C4/$file/0055805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robert Lott was sentenced by a California state court to a nineteen year prison term for narcotics trafficking. Lott appeals the decision of the district court that his federal habeas petition was untimely LOTT v. I The sole issue before us is whether federal review of the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is barred by the one year period of limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Lott's federal habeas petition was originally filed on November 20. The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation concluding that Lott's petition was untimely by at least thirty seven days. Which is later dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. This appeal is confined to the two remaining tolling arguments. Lott asserts that he is entitled to equitable tolling for the eighty two (82) day period when a state imposed impediment prevented him from accessing his legal files. Lott claims that he is entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) for the same eighty two day period covering the same denial of access to legal files. 14454 LOTT v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2002/011587.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court's order was a final and appealable order which Ahmed failed to timely appeal. As will be developed hereafter. We are accordingly without jurisdiction to rule on the issues decided in the June 26 order. We are not under a similar limitation with respect to consideration of the new issues decided in the February 13 order. We express our appreciation to counsel for the appellant who was appointed in the District Court to represent Ahmed. Who was pro se. Counsel is associated with the law firm of Schnader. Whose attorneys have consistently volunteered to represent pro se inmates in appeals at the request of this court. While he was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy.2 Following this incident. The misconduct charge was filed pursuant to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Inmate Disciplinary and Restricted Housing Procedures. After Ahmed's cell door was accidently opened. Ahmed was confined to his cell. He was found guilty. The facts of this dispute are set forth fully in the District Court's opinion reported as Ahmed v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-2348.htm">02-2348 -- AQUIAR V. TAFOYA -- 04/21/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Peter C. 2254(d) to the state court decision.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2153.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for co appellees Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Gerardo Acevedo.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/93-2225.wpd.html">RIDDLE V. TREVINO<BR></A><BR>
Who are convicted sex offenders and inmates in the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility at Las Cruces. Only six of the twenty one plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. They averred that each of them as convicted sex offenders have been denied adequate treatment for their mental disorders related to their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/992101P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment. We will recite the facts in the light most favorable to Cody. Cody is serving a life sentence as an inmate in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. Cody is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF97BA225A82346988256E5A00707BDD/$file/9935930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 such is not the case in the judicial arena
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-6043.htm">98-6043 -- U.S. V. GRAY -- 06/29/1999<BR></A><BR>
Are brought to us for resolution. The district court misapplied the mailbox rule because the facility in which appellant was incarcerated maintains an inadequate system for processing legal mail. We affirm the district court's denial of appellant's motion because he failed to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB285A20884E5ABA88256A84007C899A/$file/9935930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 such is not the case in the judicial arena
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DC763D6CA9638EBC88256B5E005D7616/$file/0016568.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We do not decide whether use of the prior findings at least in some fashion was improper. We conclude the procedure adopted here was flawed because it did not meet the requirements of our fair notice doctrine. While appeal of that dismissal was pending. We have discretion to remand a case to the district court for further consideration when new laws likely to influence a decision have become effective during the pendency of an appeal. Whether the PLRA exhaustion require2402 ment is an affirmative defense or a pleading requirement is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We adopt the rule of the majority of circuits and hold that it is an affirmative defense. Facts and Procedural Background Wyatt is an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione. Defendants do not dispute that Wyatt's religious beliefs are sincerely held or that dreadlocks are a means of practicing the Rastafarian religion. That require him to cut his hair. 1 Female inmates are not subject to the same regulations.2 Wyatt has been disciplined by prison officials for refusing to comply with the regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1461.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are inconsistent with clear congressional intent articulated in 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). Respondent contends the regulations are premised on a reasonable interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) and 3624(c). Are permissible under Lopez v. Were promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Are invalid. Regulatory and Statutory Provisions Section 570.21 of the BOP's regulations states the BOP
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1678.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
New Hampshire was on brief. The plaintiffs argue that the required disclosures are incriminating because they could lead to future prosecutions or perjury charges. They argue that the disclosures are compelled because completion of the treatment program is a de facto requirement for parole and for maintaining residence in desired prison housing. We affirm.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F169BCFEDEBA005988256BAC00761D97/$file/0135222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. While the appeal in Crofton was pending. The law with respect to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1770.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marchesi was onbrief for appellant. Bosse was onbrief for appellees.May 24. Somerset County after he was assaulted byanother inmate. Threatened Giroux in the presence ofManson upon hearing that Giroux was going to meet with thedetective. Robert Tucker apparently thought that Giroux was goingto be asked for information about Tucker. Giroux was escorted to a new cell. Although no reason for Giroux'sSeptember 19th cell change is reflected in the jail's records. Itis a fair inference that Giroux was relocated in response to RobertTucker's threats. Robert Tucker againthreatened Giroux as he was taken past Robert Tucker's cell on hisway to breakfast. Telling them that they were lucky that hisbrother Robert Tucker was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951516P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant prison officials appeal from the district court's order enjoining them from withholding court ordered restitution deductions from funds inmates receive from outside sources without providing an individualized pre deprivation hearing and requiring the defendants to repay money that was previously deducted without a hearing. An inmate may have his restitution plan reviewed by the Iowa District Court at any time during his incarceration. This case is about the collection of that twenty percent from outside sources. The Department deducted restitution only from inmates' prison allowances that is. Which was also in effect at the time of suit and which provided that credits to an inmate's account from outside sources could be deducted for criminal restitution with authorization from the inmate. The magistrate judge concluded that it was unnecessary to determine whether the failure to provide a pre deprivation hearing violated the due process clause. The district court noted that the defendants were also claiming authority to make restitution deductions under IAC rule 201 20.11.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/952245P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lee Moorman was disciplined after he was found to have violated prison regulations. good time. Moorman was sentenced to twenty five years in prison for an armed robbery which he committed using his father's .357 magnum handgun. Who was anticipating release in the near future. Moorman also stated that if he could not persuade his father to give him the .357 magnum (which both inmates agreed was the most desirable model). The guard filed a disciplinary report and Moorman was disciplined under prison rules 41 and 11. Rule 11 forbids inmates from engaging in conduct which is a felony under state or federal We reverse. The case was tried before a magistrate with the parties' consent. 1 law. Forbids inmates from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/023446P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1.50. The dispute was referred for final disposition to the Honorable Ross A. Royal contends he is entitled to more than nominal damages. Is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. We are not the first court to confront whether section 1997e(e) applies to First Amendment violations. Other courts have not agreed on a uniform interpretation of section 1997e(e). Some courts have charted a different course. Royal's second argument is his claim does not involve mental or emotional injury. Royal apparently contends other types of recovery are available to him. Injunctive and declaratory relief are available to him. 56 (1983) (holding punitive damages are authorized for violations of constitutional rights). Royal was free to seek nominal damages. Congress is well within its authority to balance the interests and reasonably limit a prisoner's relief. 5 The district court awarded $1.00 in nominal damages to Royal. Are the appropriate means of `vindicating' rights whose deprivation has not caused actual.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0061p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Prison officials were unaware of the assault until the corrections officer discovered Hearlson's body. Two of Hearlson's fellow inmates were subsequently convicted of his murder. Who is both Hearlson's mother and the administratrix of his estate. Her complaint alleged that the government was responsible for Hearlson's death because prison officials had negligently failed to adequately protect him. United States No. 02 6303 Montez's complaint alleges in pertinent part that (1) Hearlson was an inmate at FMC Lexington who was killed on or about September 14. Employees of FMC Lexington were acting within the scope of their employment at all relevant times. (3) Hearlson's murder was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/997321.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are presented with the important question of whether William Washlefske. Was deprived of his private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause when Virginia expended the interest earned from Washlefske's prison accounts for the general benefit of inmates under the State's care. This question is one of first impression in this circuit. He was not deprived of any property. We recognize the unfortunate conflict we create with the Three other decisions in the Eastern District of Virginia have resolved similar claims against prisoners using substantially the same reasoning relied upon by the lower court in this case. I Washlefske was committed to the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections in 1992 and has since been confined by the Department at the Powhatan Correctional Center. Which is credited to his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1628p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse. While an explanation for each of Hamilton's violent clashes throughout the prison system is absent from the record. The fact that Hamilton's safety has been an ongoing concern is not in dispute. On that day he was stabbed by a fellow inmate while incarcerated in the Maximum Security Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/97-4516.opn.html">MEDBERRY V. BUTLER (8/23/1999, NO. 97-4516)<BR></A><BR>
One of which is an issue of first impression in this Circuit.</P> <P> The <U>first</U> issue raised is whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/97-4516.opn.html">MEDBERRY V. BUTLER (8/23/1999, NO. 97-4516)<BR></A><BR>
One of which is an issue of first impression in this Circuit.</P> <P> The <U>first</U> issue raised is whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar97/95-7075.wpd.html">GREEN V. BRANSON<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Green was an inmate in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester. A fight broke out between Green and several prison guards while he was being escorted from the yard to the cell block. The cause of the fight is in dispute. He was seeking legal information from another inmate when Sgt. He alleges that Warden Dan Reynolds was aware that he had been beaten but took no action. He also claims that he was beaten so severely he could not lie down on a stretcher and had to walk. Until a wheelchair was brought for him. Milton Vogt was a prison physician who treated Green. Green claims he was never examined. Claims that Green was not seriously injured. Green was transferred to federal custody and we are now advised he has been released from prison and is free. Green concedes that his claim for injunctive relief against state employees is moot. He argues that he is still entitled to proceed on his declaratory relief claim because he has a live controversy relating to his claim for damages for past injury.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0360p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If the mandate issues before costs are finally determined. (B) The prisoner shall be required to make payments for costs under this subsection in the same manner as is provided for filing fees under subsection [(b)(2)]. It is difficult to see how this award of costs violated the PLRA. (2) the PLRA is a law. (4) the judgment entered against Skinner in this case did not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1383.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Appellant Glenn Wright was convicted of interstate transportation of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A and sentenced to 168 months' imprisonment. Wright will not be incarcerated for the entire 168 months. The question this appeal raises is how early he will be released. Wright will earn 635 days of good time credit. He predicts that he will earn 729 days of good time credit. The provision provides in relevant part: [A] prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner's life. The regulation provides that the BOP will
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/971813P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing his notice of appeal was timely but ignoring the fee requirements. I We have stated that the PLRA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/962427P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming the defendant state prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs in violation of their constitutional rights and rights secured under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I. The plaintiffs are a group of 20 female prisoners incarcerated in two Missouri prison facilities the Renz Correctional Center and the Chillicothe Correctional Center. Alleging that the Missouri Department of Corrections is providing inadequate medical care for women prisoners. Alleging that the defendant state prison officials are not complying with the ADA. The defendants provided the plaintiffs' attorneys with the remainder of the plaintiffs' medical records documenting treatment for conditions that were not addressed in the complaint. The defendants asserted that the volumes of documents they had voluntarily provided were sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of the plaintiffs' medical care. Concluding that 19 of the 20 plaintiffs had failed to create a genuine issue of material fact to indicate that the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs.3 Because the named plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate deliberate indifference.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-1347.htm">99-1347 -- MONTEZ V. MCKINNA -- 04/03/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Proceeding <em>pro se</em>. He also requests a ruling on whether it is necessary for him to exhaust his state remedies and. 2254 simply because Montez
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-6285.htm">01-6285 -- BURGER V. SCOTT -- 01/15/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Derek D. Because we conclude that equitable tolling should have been applied in this case. Background </strong></center> <p> Burger is currently serving a fifty year sentence for robbery with a . He was considered for parole in December of 1996. He was denied parole on each occasion. The Oklahoma law regarding parole consideration was amended to lengthen the period of reconsideration after the denial of parole from one to three years for . While his petition was date stamped as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/042253P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that the Bureau of Prisons's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/003505P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Moore was incarcerated in Jefferson City Correctional Center and later transferred to Crossroads Correctional Center. Moore was placed in temporary administrative segregation confinement (TASC) for one week in July 1996 while prison officials investigated his possible violation of prison rule 11 (possession or use of an intoxicating substance). He was sanctioned. This charge was expunged from his record. Moore was placed in TASC for security reasons and for violating rule 11. Moore was then transferred to Crossroads. Moore's prison account pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) and (3)1 for payment of court filing fees when his account balance was less than ten dollars. Advancing the following claims: (1) that the disciplinary charges were false and filed in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutional rights. (2) that he was denied meaningful access to the Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid. (3) In no event shall the filing fee collected exceed the amount of fees permitted by statute for the commencement of a civil action or an appeal of a civil action or criminal judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) & (3). 31 courts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/03-6057.htm">03-6057 -- GAMBLE V. CALBONE -- 07/13/2004<BR></A><BR>
We also granted COA on the issue whether copy fees charged by a district court to obtain a criminal record and transcript to be used in preparing and filing an application for post conviction relief are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 03 1334 Decree explicitly stated that it was intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM CC. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree until compliance was achieved. Section 802(b)(2) of the PLRA entitles the defendant
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/96-6753.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MAYES (10/29/1998, NO. 96-6753)<BR></A><BR>
Will Low. The appellants are all former FCI Talladega inmates who were prosecuted for their involvement in the riot. (2) whether the appellants were denied a fair trial as a result of being required to appear in court wearing leg irons. They were each found to have committed particular infractions and subjected to some combination of the following sanctions: (1) disciplinary transfers to maximum security prisons. As well as four codefendants who are not parties to this appeal. Extra precautions were necessary because of the number of people being tried together and the nature of the charges against them. Elston also stated that one of the appellants kicked a chair and shouted an obscenity just before an arraignment was to begin in Atlanta. Elston testified that a lieutenant who escorted some of the appellants on a bus ride to a maximum security prison in Colorado had to stop the bus and threaten to use pepper spray because some of the appellants became
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/96-6753.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MAYES (10/29/1998, NO. 96-6753)<BR></A><BR>
Will Low. The appellants are all former FCI Talladega inmates who were prosecuted for their involvement in the riot. (2) whether the appellants were denied a fair trial as a result of being required to appear in court wearing leg irons. They were each found to have committed particular infractions and subjected to some combination of the following sanctions: (1) disciplinary transfers to maximum security prisons. As well as four codefendants who are not parties to this appeal. Extra precautions were necessary because of the number of people being tried together and the nature of the charges against them. Elston also stated that one of the appellants kicked a chair and shouted an obscenity just before an arraignment was to begin in Atlanta. Elston testified that a lieutenant who escorted some of the appellants on a bus ride to a maximum security prison in Colorado had to stop the bus and threaten to use pepper spray because some of the appellants became
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966753.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will Low. The appellants are all former FCI Talladega inmates who were prosecuted for their involvement in the riot. (2) whether the appellants were denied a fair trial as a result of being required to appear in court wearing leg irons. Prison authorities ultimately regained control of the facility after The appellants in this action are Roderick Baker. They were each found to have committed particular infractions and subjected to some combination of the following sanctions: (1) disciplinary transfers to maximum security prisons. As well as four codefendants who are not parties to 2 this appeal. Extra precautions were necessary because of the number of people being tried together and the nature of the charges against them. Elston also stated that one of the appellants kicked a chair and shouted an obscenity just before an arraignment was to begin in Atlanta. Elston testified that a lieutenant who escorted some of the appellants on a bus ride to a maximum security prison in Colorado had to stop the bus and threaten to use pepper spray because some of the appellants 4 became
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966753.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will Low. The appellants are all former FCI Talladega inmates who were prosecuted for their involvement in the riot. (2) whether the appellants were denied a fair trial as a result of being required to appear in court wearing leg irons. They were each found to have committed The appellants in this action are Roderick Baker. As well as four codefendants who are not parties to this appeal. Extra precautions were necessary because of the number of people being tried together and the nature of the charges against them. Elston also stated that one of the appellants kicked a chair and shouted an obscenity just before an arraignment was to begin in Atlanta. Elston testified that a lieutenant who escorted some of the appellants on a bus ride to a maximum security prison in Colorado had to stop the bus and threaten to use pepper spray because some of the appellants became
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul20/03-40977-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Specifically explaining that the lighting was causing him to lose sleep. Alford informed Chavarria that it was necessary to keep the lights on for security reasons. Chavarria's subsequent pro se lawsuit alleging that the constant illumination of his cell constitutes cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment was referred to a magistrate judge by the district court. An evidentiary hearing was conducted pursuant to Spears v. Testified that the lights in his unit were kept on all night to permit guards to see inside the cells for security checks. The lights were dimmed at night when not making a security check or conducting a count. Chavarria then informed the magistrate judge that this was not the practice at Eastham but he was requesting that a similar policy be followed. 2 The magistrate judge found that. Chavarria had not shown a deprivation rising to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because there was no evidence he made complaints to medical personnel about lack of sleep and because the policy was a reasonable security measure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul22/03-40977-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Specifically explaining that the lighting was causing him to lose sleep. Alford informed Chavarria that it was necessary to keep the lights on for security reasons. Chavarria's subsequent pro se lawsuit alleging that the constant illumination of his cell constitutes cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment was referred to a magistrate judge by the district court. An evidentiary hearing was conducted pursuant to Spears v. Testified that the lights in his unit were kept on all night to permit guards to see inside the cells for security checks. The lights were dimmed at night when not making a security check or conducting a count. Chavarria then informed the magistrate judge that this was not the practice at Eastham but he was requesting that a similar policy be followed. 2 The magistrate judge found that. Chavarria had not shown a deprivation rising to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because there was no evidence he made complaints to medical personnel about lack of sleep and because the policy was a reasonable security measure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-1289.htm">96-1289 -- KLEIN V. COBLENTZ -- 11/19/1997<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Bret Klein. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. <p> The facts as alleged in Klein's pro se complaint and as construed in his favor are that he and another inmate at the Limon Correctional Facility. When Coblentz instituted personnel changes in the prison hobby shop where both Klein and Andrews were employees. Coblentz claimed that he had received information that Klein was going to assault him with a knife. This claim was investigated by one of Coblentz' superiors and found to be meritless. <p> Approximately two weeks after the first search of his cell. Klein's cell was again searched. Klein was then ordered to leave the area of his cell while the search was proceeding. Klein was arrested. Two days later he was informed that a knife had been found in his cell. Neither of these two requests were granted. Klein's inmate representative was not allowed to inspect the cell or to examine prison records to establish that Klein had not been the only inmate to occupy the cell. <p> After his arrest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-14090.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BREEDEN (1/28/2002, NO. 00-14090)<BR></A><BR>
They ask us to reverse the judgment on grounds related to the jury instructions and special interrogatories that were used. Also because they say that no punitive damages should have been awarded. Used excessive force against him while he was a prisoner. Luciano filed a joint motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity and other grounds.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-14090.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BREEDEN (1/28/2002, NO. 00-14090)<BR></A><BR>
They ask us to reverse the judgment on grounds related to the jury instructions and special interrogatories that were used. Also because they say that no punitive damages should have been awarded. Used excessive force against him while he was a prisoner. Luciano filed a joint motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity and other grounds.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1466.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees. Was returned to confinement after he had been allowed to participate in a work release program for almost four years. Facts Plaintiff was imprisoned in 1983 for multiple crimes including incest and is scheduled for release in June 2000. He was transferred to the minimum security Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Lancaster (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-1364.wpd.html">PENROD V. ZAVARAS<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Donald Penrod currently is serving a sentence at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Canon City. He filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging numerous constitutional violations when he was incarcerated at the Limon Correctional Facility [Limon] in Limon. I. Background Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Limon facility in 1992. Three inmates were murdered and one committed suicide during its first two years of operation. A decision was made to keep all unassigned inmates (inmates who did not have jobs or participate in other programs) in an administrative segregation unit called Living Unit II. Prison officials could monitor the activities and control the movement of unassigned prisoners once they were all housed together. Restrictions were placed on the activities of prisoners in Living Unit II. Unassigned inmates in Living Unit II were given the opportunity to enter programs or find jobs. Once they entered a program or found a job they were moved into another unit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022306.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where medical care was available for intoxicated detainees. Brought suit against the five individual officers who handled Lee while he was in custody (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0200n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pack was working as a cook in the Ryan Correctional Facility kitchen and suffered second and third degree burns while attempting to drain hot hamburger meat. Martin Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) officials for denying him proper medical treatment after his injuries were sustained. He also claims his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by MDOC officials for creating an unsafe work environment. Dismissal is appropriate if the complaint fails to set forth an allegation of a required element of a claim. Although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally. It is wellestablished that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/036763.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing of assaulting a fellow inmate. Prison officials have the discretion. Prison authorities justifiably feared reprisal against Beavers in the event that his testimony was not as Brown hoped. They were not constitutionally required to expose Beavers to the threat of a second beating. Where Brown and Beavers are incarcerated. Is Virginia's only Level 6 facility. It provides maximum security celled living for inmates who have severe behavioral problems. Who are serving extremely long sentences. Beavers had completed his duties as an inmate recreation worker and was returning to his cell. Both Brown and Beavers were then examined by the prison's medical staff.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6266.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Before EBEL. I. Background Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/96-7259a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Steven H. With her on the brief were John Ferren. Appellees argue that he should have brought his parole eligibility claims in habeas corpus. Would not have automatically resulted in his speedier release. Because we also find that the prisoner's pro se claim that he was denied access to prison programs on the basis of his race or ethnicity was sufficient to survive sua sponte dismissal. His complaint alleges that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-40977.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Specifically explaining that the lighting was causing him to lose sleep. Alford informed Chavarria that it was necessary to keep the lights on for security reasons. Chavarria's subsequent pro se lawsuit alleging that the constant illumination of his cell constitutes cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment was referred to a magistrate judge by the district court. An evidentiary hearing was conducted pursuant to Spears v. Testified that the lights in his unit were kept on all night to permit guards to see inside the 2 cells for security checks. The lights were dimmed at night when not making a security check or conducting a count. Chavarria then informed the magistrate judge that this was not the practice at Eastham but he was requesting that a similar policy be followed. Chavarria had not shown a deprivation rising to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because there was no evidence he made complaints to medical personnel about lack of sleep and because the policy was a reasonable security measure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-7108.wpd.html">MITCHELL V. MAYNARD<BR></A><BR>
A jury trial was held on Mr. Mitchell raises eight issues on appeal: 1) were his Eighth Amendment rights violated by the conditions of his confinement at Oklahoma State Penitentiary. 2) was there
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul23/03-40977.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Specifically explaining that the lighting was causing him to lose sleep. Alford informed Chavarria that it was necessary to keep the lights on for security reasons. Chavarria's subsequent pro se lawsuit alleging that the constant illumination of his cell constitutes cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment was referred to a magistrate judge by the district court. An evidentiary hearing was conducted pursuant to Spears v. Testified that the lights in his unit were kept on all night to permit guards to see inside the 2 cells for security checks. The lights were dimmed at night when not making a security check or conducting a count. Chavarria then informed the magistrate judge that this was not the practice at Eastham but he was requesting that a similar policy be followed. Chavarria had not shown a deprivation rising to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because there was no evidence he made complaints to medical personnel about lack of sleep and because the policy was a reasonable security measure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-40977.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Specifically explaining that the lighting was causing him to lose sleep. Alford informed Chavarria that it was necessary to keep the lights on for security reasons. Chavarria's subsequent pro se lawsuit alleging that the constant illumination of his cell constitutes cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment was referred to a magistrate judge by the district court. An evidentiary hearing was conducted pursuant to Spears v. Testified that the lights in his unit were kept on all night to permit guards to see inside the 2 cells for security checks. The lights were dimmed at night when not making a security check or conducting a count. Chavarria then informed the magistrate judge that this was not the practice at Eastham but he was requesting that a similar policy be followed. Chavarria had not shown a deprivation rising to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because there was no evidence he made complaints to medical personnel about lack of sleep and because the policy was a reasonable security measure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-40977.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Specifically explaining that the lighting was causing him to lose sleep. Alford informed Chavarria that it was necessary to keep the lights on for security reasons. Chavarria's subsequent pro se lawsuit alleging that the constant illumination of his cell constitutes cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment was referred to a magistrate judge by the district court. An evidentiary hearing was conducted pursuant to Spears v. Testified that the lights in his unit were kept on all night to permit guards to see inside the 2 cells for security checks. The lights were dimmed at night when not making a security check or conducting a count. Chavarria then informed the magistrate judge that this was not the practice at Eastham but he was requesting that a similar policy be followed. Chavarria had not shown a deprivation rising to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because there was no evidence he made complaints to medical personnel about lack of sleep and because the policy was a reasonable security measure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/771DDEC4217D18C088256F780080D38C/$file/0335187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No appearance was made by the respondent appellee. Will not necessarily. Affect the duration of a prisoner's confinement if meritorious are cognizable via habeas. Docken was sentenced to 100 years in prison and designated. Docken's plea and sentence were affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court. Have appeared in this federal suit. Which then provided: If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. On the ground that it is not cognizable via habeas but must rather be brought as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We granted a Certificate of Appealability limited to the question of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1486.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014090.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They ask us to reverse the judgment on grounds related to the jury instructions and special interrogatories that were used. Also because they say that no punitive damages should have been awarded. Used excessive force against him while he was a prisoner. Luciano filed a joint motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity and other grounds.2 The district court denied that motion insofar as the excessive force claim was concerned. The case was tried before a jury. Ernest Johnson was incarcerated at Phillips Correctional Institution in Buford. He was returning to his cell after a work detail. A prison guard questioned Johnson as to his possession of food items from the prison store when it was not his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1037.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Self was transferred to the Denver County jail. Because Self's symptoms were not particularly specific. Although the lab results were not yet available. After hearing what he thought was evidence of pneumonia. Was admonished that if he did not improve by the <hr> morning he would again be asked to visit the emergency room. Eventually concluded that surgery was necessary. Self was transferred to another hospital for repair of his aortic valve. The damage to his heart might have been less severe and. Surgery might have been avoided. Rejected (1) The record is unclear as to when Self was transferred from the x ray facilities at the hospital to the emergency room. At some point after his x rays were completed. Self was evaluated by hospital staff and referred to the emergency room. <hr> the magistrate judge's recommendation. Or (2) Crum deliberately disregarded information which would have led to the discovery of Self's actual condition. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate in cases where the record discloses
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0382p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a tragic case. I. BACKGROUND Perez's Prior Terms of Incarceration at Oakland County Jail Perez was born in 1983. Was diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and as being learning disabled when he was six years old. When he was 17 years old. He pleaded guilty to two charges of felony larceny from a building and was given a six month sentence on May 11. It was initially determined that due to Perez's age he should serve his time in a boot camp. After he reported to a boot camp counselor that he was experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices telling him to quit or escape. Perez was transferred to the Oakland County Jail in late June. He was met by defendant Roberta Rice. Which was conducted by Dr. Perez was housed with a roommate and placed on a 30 minute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1009.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Carr was terminated from his job at the prison library allegedly so that the prison could hire an African American to take his job. Prison officials restricted his access to the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was immediately placed in administrative segregation. He contends that his appeal of the misconduct conviction exhausts his administrative remedies because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31016.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No WCI official had indicated to him that the hairstyle was improper. Toppins was repeatedly given disciplinary citations for refusing to either remove his hair from the dreadlocks or cut off his dreadlocks. Some of these citations were appealed. Some were not. On a single occasion Toppins was not permitted to go to a scheduled doctor's appointment because of his refusal to remove his dreadlocks. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 2 was not permitted to appear in court. After Toppins was permitted to file an amended complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The dismissal of claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)1 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Claims reviewed under this standard are III.A.(1) and III.B.(7). The dismissal of claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A2 is reviewed de novo. Claims III.B.(1) (4) are reviewed under this standard. Also relevant for purposes of this appeal is that de novo review is given to claims dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2002/991382.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith was allowed to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claims. We will reverse in part and affirm in part. That report cited Smith for assaulting corrections officers 2 as they were escorting him to the Restricted Housing Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/96-5177a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Attor ney at the time the brief was filed. Was on the brief. Which were numerous and growing more so. Based upon the belief that most such suits were facially defective. The goal of the PLRA was to reduce the number of such meritless lawsuits: Section 2 will require prisoners to pay a very small share of the large burden they place on the Federal judicial system by paying a small filing fee upon commencement of lawsuits. The provision will deter frivo lous inmate lawsuits. The modest monetary outlay will force prisoners to think twice about the case and not just file reflexively. Prisoners will have to make the same decision that law abiding Americans must make: Is the lawsuit worth the price? 141 Cong. The statute provides that the district court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B0558ABEB5B6D04F88257184007D7EAB/$file/0515650.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was partially granted at the first formal level of review. Was partially granted at the second formal level of review. Was denied at the Director's level of review. While his grievance was still pending before the Director. By which time the administrative review Defendant Summerhill is also a prison employee. Vaden identified Summerhill as a subject of his grievance for the first time in his federal court complaint. 2 Defendant Duncan is the Assistant Director of the California Department of Corrections. Alleging that he was liable for having promulgated the state's prison policies. 1 VADEN v. His complaint was formally filed. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3180.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Appellant Todd Carlton Smith is serving a life sentence imposed by the state of Florida. In June 2002 he was transferred for his own protection to the Kansas Department of Corrections under the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC). Smith was allegedly assaulted by a fellow prisoner at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Kansas. He also contends that the district judge was biased against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Smith's claims are predicated on the following allegations: On April 18. Smith's earlier murder of a fellow inmate in Florida who was a member of the Folk Nation. Smith informed prison officials that he was not safe even in protective custody because of the enmity that other Lansing inmates bore towards him. He complained that he and other inmates in protective custody were forced to pass through the general inmate population when going to medical
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-3119a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the appellant. Were on brief for the appellee. Per Curiam: Appellant Russell Eugene Weston Jr. appeals the district court's order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) to forcibly medicate Weston with antipsychotic drugs based on the Bureau's determination that the treat ment is medically appropriate and essential for Weston's safety and for the safety of others. Was charged in a six count indictment with the July 24. Who is confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner. Should medical per sonnel conclude antipsychotic injections were warranted. The order further directed:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAxOTZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0196_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contends that he was denied access to the courts principally through defendants' denial of materials that he requested from the jail's law library. We hold that the appointment of counsel is a valid means of fully satisfying a state's constitutional obligation to provide prisoners. We further hold that constitutionally acceptable access to the courts through appointed counsel is not measured by Decided: October 5. All of which allegedly harmed Bourdon in his efforts to prepare and file pro se a timely pretrial motion to dismiss the state criminal indictment pursuant to which he was being detained. Have the tools they need in order to defend against criminal charges. Bourdon an indigent prisoner was represented by court appointed counsel. He argues that his appointed counsel was ineffective and therefore. 318 19 (1981) (holding that public defenders do not act
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-4022.wpd.html">GRIMSLEY V. MACKAY<BR></A><BR>
Although Defendants are deemed to have timely filed their notice of appeal. MacKay was a settling defendant. They have perfected their right to appeal. The Supreme Court has recognized that courts may find compliance with Rule 3
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/021397P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After he was assaulted in the Taney County jail. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the petition asserting it was filed beyond the five year statute of limitations. Judgment was entered on October 26. Sulik appeals the dismissal of his complaint asserting the district court should have deemed his § 1983 action filed when he placed his complaint in the prison mail system. The notice is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. The prisoner is not required to attach his affidavit or statement to his notice of appeal. It is clear Sulik deposited his notice of appeal in the prison mail system before the November 26 deadline because the envelope containing the notice bore a November 21 postmark and the notice was received by the clerk's office on November 27. A remand is unnecessary. Having concluded we have jurisdiction. Sulik contends the district court should not have dismissed his § 1983 complaint as untimely because he placed it in the prison mail system on February 15.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0133p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0133p.06 raised the matters repeatedly in public fora (although the court noted that Chappel's private speech was also protected). His
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1210.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This action was prompted by prison officials' interception of three parcels mailed to plaintiff in March and April 2001. When he was incarcerated at the Fremont Correctional Facility in Canon City. The other two contained legal documents from the Colorado State Archives and the Library of Congress which had been purchased for plaintiff by a third party who was listed as another inmate's visitor and. Alleging that the prohibition on gifts was not reasonably related to any penological goals and that his pursuit of other cases had been impeded by the loss of legal materials. Alleging that he was deprived of property without recourse to challenge the deprivation. It is important to clarify a significant limitation on the scope of this appeal. While this action was pending below. Plaintiff was paroled out of the state prison system. That disposition was correct. Defendants argue that the matter is now beyond challenge. Invoking our
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21FFD637F320655D88256BBC00528B36/$file/0135222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. While the appeal in Crofton was pending. The law with respect to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946343.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. David was not admitted to Eufaula until He was fifteen years almost a year later. Although he was resuscitated. For the sake of simplicity and brevity we will refer to Dr. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction. The Court extended the Estelle analysis holding that the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the state to provide involuntarily committed mental patients with such services as are necessary to ensure their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-3451.man.html">MCELLIGOTT V. FOLEY (8/3/1999, NO. 98-3451)<BR></A><BR>
Head nurse Sharon Wagner on Elmore's claim that the medical care he received in jail violated the Eighth Amendment.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3227.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and do not infringe PLN's due process rights. Inmates are allowed only a facility bank account. All of an inmate's funds must be deposited therein and transactions involving any other financial account are only permitted by written permission.(2) I R. It was not enforced initially. Another one year grandfathering period was allowed for Level II and III inmates until March 2. If the material is included as part of a firstclass letter that does not exceed one ounce in total weight. (2) The procedures for censorship of mail listed in subsection (d) of this regulation shall be used for censorship of publications. (3) No publication that meets either of the following conditions shall be allowed into the facility: (A) Contains sexually explicit material. Or is otherwise illegal. The test for censorship of mail in subsection (d) of this regulation. (4) Inmates shall have the option of having censored publications in their entirety either mailed out of the facility at their own expense or discarded. (5) Before transferring between institutions or facilities.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-3451.man.html">MCELLIGOTT V. FOLEY (8/3/1999, NO. 98-3451)<BR></A><BR>
Head nurse Sharon Wagner on Elmore's claim that the medical care he received in jail violated the Eighth Amendment.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044189np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will deny his appeal. Matsey was the highest ranking official at the Prison during his shift. He was fired from his job in April. In which his personal involvement is subject to some dispute. Was running a drug trafficking operation out of his prison cell. A grand jury was convened to investigate the drug scandal. Including allegations that Whethers received certain favorable treatment from corrections Matsey voluntarily withdrew his claim alleging
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/97-9009.man.html">JONES V. GARNER (1/6/1999, NO. 97-9009)<BR></A><BR>
Background</P> <P> The facts of this case are not in dispute. Jones was sentenced in the Superior Court of Fulton County. In August of 1982 he was again sentenced in the same court to life in prison for murder on subsequent charges. If parole was not granted at that time. After Jones was incarcerated but before he was initially considered for parole. Regs. r. 475 3 .05.(2).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0397p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs in these three consolidated cases are Ohio prisoners who contend. That various Ohio corrections officials have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Their motions were denied by the district court. The facts of the individual cases are not particularly relevant. What is relevant to this case is the history and substance of RLUIPA. The Supreme Court held that the United States Constitution does not require that government have a compelling state interest in order to enact a law of general applicability that incidentally burdens the exercise of religion. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/97-9009.man.html">JONES V. GARNER (1/6/1999, NO. 97-9009)<BR></A><BR>
Background</P> <P> The facts of this case are not in dispute. Jones was sentenced in the Superior Court of Fulton County. In August of 1982 he was again sentenced in the same court to life in prison for murder on subsequent charges. If parole was not granted at that time. After Jones was incarcerated but before he was initially considered for parole. Regs. r. 475 3 .05.(2).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/012951.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether we have jurisdiction to consider this case. We will therefore vacate the District Court's dismissal. Fiorelli was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment following his convictions for racketeering. Fiorelli's motion alleged that his counsel failed to disclose a plea agreement offered by the government that would have resulted in a 60 month term of imprisonment. Fiorelli alleged only that Carroll
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2002/011738.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a prisoner's civil rights case. Claims that he was unlawfully subjected to cell searches and disciplinary proceedings in retaliation for his jailhouse lawyering. Which he contends was disfavored at the State Correctional Institute at Mahanoy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-1011.htm">97-1011 -- PRESSEL V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 10/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
White was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Alleging he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Counsel was ordered to address specifically the constitutional implications of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0109p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We believe the error was not harmless because the district court could not have properly dismissed Brown's complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Bargery 3 I have had to go to the extremes of taking an old piece of sheet. If the cruel and unusual punishment here is allowing the mattresses to slide off the steel bunks. They are not spikes and they do not seem to protrude for any great distance. The officials in the institution involved in this case may have been unwise or negligent. The grievance was denied after prison officials claimed that the sleeping bunks had been installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Brown was the only one of the inmates who properly completed and submitted an in forma pauperis affidavit and a prison trust fund account statement. Dismissing it sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) on grounds that the Eighth Amendment claim was frivolous. That may have been paid. The court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAxOTYgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-0196%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contends that he was denied access to the courts principally through defendants' denial of materials that he requested from the jail's law library. We further hold that constitutionally acceptable access to the courts through appointed counsel is not measured by reference to the Sixth Decided: October 5. All of which allegedly harmed Bourdon in his efforts to prepare and file pro se a timely pretrial motion to dismiss the state criminal indictment pursuant to which he was being detained. Bourdon an indigent prisoner was represented by court appointed counsel. Have the tools they need in order to defend against criminal charges. He argues that his appointed counsel was ineffective and therefore. 318 19 (1981) (holding that public defenders do not act
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0515n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Walton claims that while white prisoners were given definite upper slot restrictions (30 or 60 days at most) for similar assaults. He was given an indefinite restriction. Are imposed individually and one prisoner's restriction does not affect the discipline that another prisoner receives. He identified an additional white prisoner who was given a definite upper slot restriction for misconduct that allegedly paralleled Walton's misconduct. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory. We have said. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B7A43A0038F7C5F88256E060000EE20/$file/0117126.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Id. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/973627.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael Malik Allah appeals the District Court's order dismissing Allah's complaint before service on the ground that his claims are barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Sandin v. Including his claim that he was kept in administrative segregation in retaliation for filing civil rights lawsuits. Who was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 1997 alleging that he was being kept in administrative segregation at S.C.I. That while he was kept in administrative segregation he was denied meaningful access to the courts. Allah was transferred from S.C.I. 1997 and was placed in administrative segregation. He was told by the officer in charge that the officer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2431_048.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which requires 2 No. 03 2431 district judges to screen prisoner suits for merit as soon as they are filed. The joinder of the Bureau of Prisons was indeed frivolous. Who is in prison because he was convicted in 1999 of selling a defaced firearm. Was sentenced to 130 months in prison. Is the lawful owner of some stocks that he wanted to instruct his broker to sell if their prices fell below specified levels. The prison offers them an opportunity to have their numbers removed from the list. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101(a)(2). Apparently the procedure was not followed in this case. King was allowed to make one call to his stockbroker and then issued a disciplinary citation for misusing his telephone privileges. The government argues that calling a stockbroker is improper because a prisoner is not allowed to conduct a No. 03 2431 3 business. Indeed he is not. This is a permissible restriction on prisoners' residual freedom. Unless one is engaged in a financial business. Contingent on a price change) is no more the conduct of a business than asking a real estate broker to sell one's house is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/96-5166a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pemberton was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Robbins were on the brief. Whether an inmate states a claim upon which relief may be granted when he alleges that a District of Columbia Department of Corrections officer threatened to have him killed and that Department of Correc tions officials failed to respond to his complaints concerning the threat. Which authorized courts to waive the payment of initial filing fees and to permit a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For over two days while Blackmore was detained in the Kalamazoo County jail. Blackmore asserts that his proof is sufficient to create material factual disputes on whether he had a serious need for medical care during his detention. Blackmore was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/69E8AC83D0DECB7988256ADA0059D86C/$file/9915867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher. 14113 99 15868 99 15869 99 15870 D.C. Is amended in accordance with the attached amended opinion. Judges Kozinski and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Aldisert has so recommended. 14120 The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Was wounded by a rifle shot fired by a correctional officer. To determine whether the rights assured Jeffers by the Eighth Amendment were violated. We must examine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051598p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. 3 I. John Kaucher was hired by the County of Bucks in 1999 as a corrections officer at the Bucks County Correctional Facility. Who are responsible for supervising inmates at work locations and in housing units and for transporting inmates between institutions and to and from outside appointments. The job description notes that corrections officers will have daily contact with incarcerated individuals and warns that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4ED683B301798CC88256E5A00707CF8/$file/9915867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher. 14113 99 15868 99 15869 99 15870 D.C. Is amended in accordance with the attached amended opinion. Judges Kozinski and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Aldisert has so recommended. 14120 The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Was wounded by a rifle shot fired by a correctional officer. To determine whether the rights assured Jeffers by the Eighth Amendment were violated. We must examine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3261.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Ricco is a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth. Finding that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/963752P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On reconsideration it concluded that the section is unconstitutional and reinstated the action with leave for Lyon to request in forma pauperis status. Their request for interlocutory review was granted. He had $138.40 in his prison account and $64.52 in his prison savings account and was receiving $67.20 in prison wages each month. His initial request for in forma pauperis status was denied because he had at least three prior actions which had been dismissed as frivolous and section 1915(g) therefore requires full payment of the filing fee unless the prisoner is in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-1332.htm">00-1332 -- BAKER V. SUTHERS -- 06/05/2001<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Leroy Walter Baker. Baker is not able to pay the fee of $3.00 dollars that the court is requesting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/411DF400F008CA6C88256E7B0058C302/$file/Ramirez+opinion+to+file+w+dissent.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was objectively unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Ramirez was caught walking out of a Sears department store in broad daylight carrying a $199 VCR for which he had not paid. The encounter was without violence. Prosecutors could have charged Ramirez with a petty theft misdemeanor. After he was convicted of this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0116p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because a victory for Thomas would have at most the potential to decrease his period of detention and because Thomas has alleged adequately the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim. Factual Background Thomas is imprisoned at Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga. Whose first name is not presently known. He was asleep in his cell at 1:30 a.m. on October 23. Eby told him that she was going to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E7A2686227CC52C988256E850077133B/$file/0256066ao.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was objectively unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Ramirez was caught walking out of a Sears department store in broad daylight carrying a $199 VCR for which he had not paid. The encounter was without violence. Prosecutors could have charged Ramirez with a petty theft misdemeanor. After he was convicted of this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0688n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40EF69E0B1C8B8C38825728000821E44/$file/0436021.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over this appeal of the final judgment of the district court. I. Phillips was convicted in state court of second degree manslaughter and sentenced to an indeterminate term of ten years imprisonment. Was subsequently incarcerated for other crimes. He was seeking access to PHILLIPS v. He was called to the library on June 8. He was unable to bind the petition on that date. Rossi/Hust
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/97-6025.htm">97-6025 -- SHABAZZ V. PARSONS -- 10/21/1997<BR></A><BR>
Shabazz access to more material than was necessary. <u>See</u> <u>Shabazz v. That the fee provisions of the PLRA are unconstitutional. Shabazz first appears to argue that the Act should not apply to him because his action was filed in district court before April 26. We held that the Act's fee provisions do not apply when the notice of appeal was filed prior to the Act's effective date. We held that a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal who files his notice of appeal after the PLRA enactment date
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1ACD31C64834D23588256D6F00072171/$file/0156436o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The full court was advised of the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc. The Petition and the Suggestion are thus DENIED. 10177 10178 JOHNSON v. Fails to recognize that Turner analysis is inapplicable in cases. In which the right asserted is not inconsistent with legitimate penological objectives. I. Strict Scrutiny is the Applicable Standard for All Race Based Government Classifications. The Supreme Court has clearly held that government classifications based on race are. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10179 pose of strict scrutiny is to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1113.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Sparks claims to have been incorrectly labeled a gang member by Lieutenant Foster while at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility. Sparks learned he was considered a security threat and classified within a Security Threat Group (STG). Sparks was moved to the Sterling Correctional Facility. Sparks claims to have been told by Lieutenant Hoffman that he was considered a leading member of a prison gang called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041540np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) filing false disciplinary charges against him that were later dismissed (Count IV defendant Barnes). Oliver is not appealing this order. 2 1
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BCCD2D7D4F1B5BF882569EC0069A155/$file/9936084.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse and remand. The following facts are undisputed. The Department has prohibited the receipt of bulk mail into Oregon prisons under the rationales that bulk mail is voluminous and generally of little value to prisoners. Substantial staff is required to sort. 86 of which were nonprofit organization mail. Mail that was previously designated as third or fourth class mail (bulk mail) is now classified as Standard A mail and Standard B mail. Standard A mail is further subdivided into two classes:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/03764A1044D9F92F88256E5A00707A37/$file/9936084.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse and remand. The following facts are undisputed. The Department has prohibited the receipt of bulk mail into Oregon prisons under the rationales that bulk mail is voluminous and generally of little value to prisoners. Substantial staff is required to sort. 86 of which were nonprofit organization mail. Mail that was previously designated as third or fourth class mail (bulk mail) is now classified as Standard A mail and Standard B mail. Standard A mail is further subdivided into two classes:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0330p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
III was convicted in a Tennessee state court on two counts of first degree murder and on two counts of grand larceny. He was sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because Tennessee's death penalty statute was declared unconstitutional while Dyer's direct appeal was pending. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. When Dyer was granted his second parole hearing in 1998. The Tennessee parole board used the statutory parole standard in effect at the time of the hearing rather than the standard in effect at the time of his offenses to determine that Dyer was not eligible for parole. Dyer was granted a second parole hearing in 1998. Only if the board is of the opinion that there is reasonable probability that if such prisoner is released he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law. That his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society. Only if the board is of the opinion that there is reasonable probability that such prisoner. Will live and remain at liberty without violating the law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-1129.htm">03-1129 -- THOMAS V. GUNJA -- 09/14/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/991869P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Shields' allegations warranted a jury trial.2 The following facts were adduced. Shields testified he was working in the prison kitchen on March 12. Where he was met by Jones. The proper inquiry is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7A6A4061A2A116388256DE2005DF27A/$file/0217077.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Challenged a prison policy requiring books and magazines mailed to the prison to have an approved vendor label affixed to the package. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ashker because the policy unreasonably burdened Ashker's First Amendment rights and was not rationally related to a legitimate penological objective. The court further held that Ashker was entitled to injunctive relief and issued a permanent injunction enjoining PBSP from enforcing the book label requirement. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a).1 We affirm. BACKGROUND2 Ashker's complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleged violations of his rights under the First and Eighth Amendments.3 Ashker contended that a prison policy requiring all packages 1 The record is unclear as to whether the district court entered a final judgment with respect to Ashker's Eighth Amendment claims. The judgment appealed from recites merely that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D201651197BD6AE588256E5A00707B24/$file/0055922.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the defendants qualified immunity because there was a triable issue as to whether they were deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk that Robinson would be harmed when he was placed in an integrated yard. We have jurisdiction over the defendants' appeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Is housed in the Administrative Segregation Unit. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D50564A3B29FEFE288256A45005D38DD/$file/0055922.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the defendants qualified immunity because there was a triable issue as to whether they were deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk that Robinson would be harmed when he was placed in an integrated yard. We have jurisdiction over the defendants' appeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Is housed in the Administrative Segregation Unit. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3315.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Petitioner Clinton Howard. Howard was denied the opportunity to present potentially exculpatory evidence at one of his hearings. Was involved in a fight with another inmate (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/023874P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Murphy is incarcerated at the Crossroads Correctional Center in Cameron. He is a practicing member of the Christian Separatist Church Society (CSC). A religious group that holds as a central tenet the belief that its members must all be Caucasian because they are uniquely blessed by God and must separate themselves from all non Caucasian persons. MDOC contends that its decision was necessary to preserve security and to reduce the likelihood of racial violence. To have access to clergy visits. He claims that he was improperly denied privileges that have been given to other separatist groups. Was improperly censored. Summary judgment is proper if. There is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the moving party has presented evidence establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. We consider only admissible evidence and disregard portions of various affidavits and depositions that were made without personal knowledge. Constitutional claims that would otherwise receive strict scrutiny analysis if raised by a member of the general population are evaluated under a lesser standard of scrutiny in the context of a prison setting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1781p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He claims that the Commission's conclusion that he was affiliated with an organized crime family was not supported by any evidence. That an organized crime affiliation is not enough. We will reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. I. Erasmo Gambino is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fairton. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin. Gambino was also convicted of use of a telephone in a conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin. He was sentenced to a 34 year term of imprisonment and a $95. Gambino was cited for attempted escape from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. He was later found guilty and given a 30 day disciplinary segregation as punishment. Gambino was entitled to a parole hearing. The United States Parole Commission conducted a parole hearing and Gambino was denied release.2 The Hearing Panel assigned Gambino a Category Six Offense Severity Rating because he had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 but less than 999 grams of pure heroin.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2357.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Was on brief. We have jurisdiction because Cronin's motion was based on her claim of qualified immunity and because her challenge to its denial involves only abstract legal questions. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8587157E55117EA88256EED006D3931/$file/0217224.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm the district court's judgment because the regulation at issue is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. We find that the AIRFA is simply a policy statement and does not create a cause of action or any judicially enforceable individual rights. I Henderson is a Native American of mixed ancestry who is currently incarcerated in California. The district court found that Henderson sincerely believes that his hair is sacred. To have his hair cut otherwise is considered a form of defilement. There is no religious exemption. II Whether California's hair length regulation impermissibly restricts Henderson's First Amendment right is a mixed ques 11136 HENDERSON v. The constitutional question Henderson has raised requires de novo review because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/952057P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
. . . you could have kept him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/97-6025.wpd.html">SHABAZZ V. PARSONS<BR></A><BR>
Shabazz access to more material than was necessary. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. proceed in forma pauperis. That the fee provisions of the PLRA are unconstitutional. Shabazz first appears to argue that the Act should not apply to him because his action was filed in district court before April 26. We held that the Act's fee provisions do not apply when the notice of appeal was filed prior to the Act's effective date. We held that a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal who files his notice of appeal after the PLRA enactment date
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041977np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
George Jackson is an inmate at Sussex Correctional Institute in Delaware.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D144B6DA751560988256DAD005B46FE/$file/0157036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The freedom from administrative segregation that was affected by the denial of due process. We must determine whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment on Serrano's equal protection claim in light of evidence presented as to whether a prison officer's decision to deny the requested witness testimony during his disciplinary hearing was racially motivated. Francis is entitled to qualified immunity as to the due process claim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1570.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> EBEL. Boles is an Orthodox Jew serving time at the Freemont Correctional Facility in Ca¤on City. I. The relevant facts are not disputed. While he was incarcerated at FCF. Boles was scheduled to have eye surgery at an off site hospital. 515 (10th Cir. 1998) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1159.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Prevett</SPAN> and the <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0382p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Cornelius Hoevenaar is a native American of Cherokee ancestry currently serving a life sentence in the Ohio prison system. Hoevenaar claims that prison rules regulating hair length violate his right to practice his religious beliefs and are in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). Allowing Hoevenaar to maintain a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/017025.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: The question before the court is whether. We hold that the PLRA fee requirements are not applicable to a released prisoner (assuming the prisoner made any required payments while in prison) and that his obligation to pay filing fees is determined by evaluating whether he qualifies under the general in forma pauperis provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The district court issued an order stating that because DeBlasio was no longer in custody. He was not eligible for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Eggleston was a co plaintiff in the initial complaint. GILMORE appeal is a separate issue from his ability to pay the filing fee for a civil action. Federal courts have statutory power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to authorize commencement of civil actions in forma pauperis. Section 1915 is intended to allow qualified litigants to proceed without having to advance the fees and costs associated with litigation. The litigant is excused from prepayment of filing fees. Is somewhat different. Is not excused from prepaying the filing fee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-3346.htm">97-3346 -- THOMAS V. LESLIE -- 04/21/1999<BR></A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This appeal (No. 97 3346) and cross appeal (No. 97 3361) are taken from decisions granting summary judgment to Sheriff Leslie in No. 97 3346 and to Mr. . In which he claimed his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Reno County Detention Center (RCDC) from December of 1992 through May of 1994. Thomas contended that he was denied an hour of exercise per day outside his cell in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thomas was incarcerated at the RCDC. He was briefly transferred on several occasions to a . He was transferred back to Texas. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2273b.htm">02-2273B -- U.S. V. CEBALLOS-MARTINEZ -- 02/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
</strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2273a.htm">02-2273A -- U.S. V. CEBALLOS-MARTINEZ -- 02/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
</strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6343.man.html">DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dolihite v. We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.<p> On February 17. David was not admitted to Eufaula until almost a year later. He was fifteen years old. Although he was resuscitated. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction.ately indifferent to a pretrial detainee's medial needs). Also noting that the limitation imposed by <i>Johnson</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6343.man.html">DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dolihite v. We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.<p> On February 17. David was not admitted to Eufaula until almost a year later. He was fifteen years old. Although he was resuscitated. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction.ately indifferent to a pretrial detainee's medial needs). Also noting that the limitation imposed by <i>Johnson</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/93-1181.html">HAYES V. MARRIOTT<BR></A><BR>
Hayes alleges that in January 1991 he was subjected to an unreasonable body cavity search that was videotaped by prison officials. He maintains that all inmates in the facility were searched in common areas in the presence of female corrections officers as well as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043741np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that prison health workers and prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That his intention was to state a cause of action against Clinton County. Defendants have identified her as Lauralee Dingler. Goodrich contends both that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous because there were genuine issues of material fact on the issue of appellees' deliberate indifference. That the grant of summary judgment was premature. Because he was afforded no meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery. Appellees' position is that there was no error in the District Court's decision to grant 4 We commend pro bono counsel for their efforts on behalf of the appellant. 3 summary judgment and no abuse of discretion in its denial of the motion to appoint counsel. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment and the denial of the motion to appoint counsel. She asked how he was feeling. Goodrich informed her that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0189p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Because Spencer has failed to satisfy the 1 The full names of Snarey and Wallace are not in the record. 1 No. 05 2562 Spencer v. I. BACKGROUND Spencer was a pretrial detainee at the Oakland County Jail in Pontiac. A party who receives such notice yet fails timely to object is deemed to waive review of the district court's adoption of the magistrate judge's recommendations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2273.htm">02-2273 -- U.S. V. CEBALLOS-MARTINEZ -- 02/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
Ceballos Martinez argues that the district court's receipt of his notice of appeal five days after the filing deadline is timely under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/022101p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Prohibits the use of funds appropriated for the United States Bureau of Prisons (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-3236.htm">98-3236 -- STEWART V. THOMAS -- 04/12/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Stephen Allen Stewart. Stewart is an inmate in the El Dorado Correction Facility. Stewart was denied special meals served after sunset in observance of Ramadan in 1997. <p> During the Islamic month of Ramadan. Ramadan is important in the Muslim faith because it is the month in which the first verses of the Holy Qur'an (often spelled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1014.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was suspected of attempting to escape in the early morning hours of September 15. That evening he was transferred to MCI at Cedar Junction. Josselyn contends that he did not have adequate notice that defendants' motion would be treated as one seeking summary judgment. This argument is specious. Defendants' motion was permissibly phrased in the alternative. There were actually two such motions. The first was filed in February 1991 with an accompanying memorandum. This motion recited that it was filed on behalf of 13 named defendants. There were. 16 named defendants and the omission of 3 names appears to have been inadvertent. As this 3 itself gave notice to Josselyn and he was given a reasonable opportunity to respond. There is no genuine issues of material fact and no necessity for a hearing. Josselyn complains that the court's grant of summary judgment was not accompanied by any supporting memorandum. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of summary judgment motions. If it was warranted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/961892P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before the court is Joseph Amrine's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Amrine was convicted in 1986 for murdering a fellow prisoner. He was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court. As was the denial of post conviction relief. He filed this petition for federal habeas relief in 1990 and an amended petition in 1991.1 The federal Amrine's petition thus predated the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 1 district court2 denied habeas relief in 1996 on the basis that his claims were either procedurally barred or without merit. That motion was granted by this court en banc. Finding that the new evidence was not reliable and that Amrine therefore could not make out a claim of actual innocence. The order was not forwarded to this court and not until March 2000 were we able to obtain a copy. Was stabbed to death in a prison recreation room on October 18. Amrine was charged with the crime. Inmate Terry Russell testified that relations between Amrine and Barber were tense because of the rumors and that Amrine had confronted Barber and threatened him about a week before the murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56DBAB00715A69D488256D2500832D23/$file/0116033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Lawrence Krug is an Arizona state prisoner. Nor is he required to seek modification of the decree in order to obtain relief. We also conclude that the ADOC officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Krug's claim for damages. Before Krug was incarcerated in the Arizona state prison system. LUTZ ing publications as obscene were conducted by a prison official other than the one who made the initial determination.1 Beginning in 1997. A revised policy was issued in late 1999. ADOC officials rejected 63 publications addressed to Krug because they were deemed obscene. It directed the ADOC officials to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/041308np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amir Abdul Karim Ali filed a § 1983 claim against numerous individuals alleging that they were deliberately indifferent during his incarceration to the serious medical 2 needs presented by his shoulder impairment. We disagree and will affirm the District Court. We also
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0406n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Williams's claims and that the ADA does not provide for a cause of action against government officials sued in their individual capacities. McLemore et al. are not entitled to qualified immunity from his claims. That defendants have forfeited their argument that Williams is not entitled to relief under the ADA. Williams was transferred from JMF to the State Prison of Southern Michigan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041308np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amir Abdul Karim Ali filed a § 1983 claim against numerous individuals alleging that they were deliberately indifferent during his incarceration to the serious medical 2 needs presented by his shoulder impairment. We disagree and will affirm the District Court. We also
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962487P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is not a state actor. This means that he is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041786np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sexually assaulted them over a period of time in 1997 through 1999 and that the Administrative Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk that such assaults would occur.2 Specifically. Heggenmiller and Davis contend the Administrative Defendants failed to have adequate privacy training and guard/inmate interaction policies and rules in place at the time of their assaults. To have such training and policies in place and (2) the Administrative Defendants' knowledge of prior instances of sexual misconduct by other guards at EMCF. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98346F5C0C3C501988256C2B004FF363/$file/0135300.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Thompson *Valdez was well represented in this appeal by Mr. Juan Valdez alleges that his constitutional rights were violated during his pretrial detention in the Alaska Cook Inlet Pretrial Facility (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7BDB0B7EA275256188256B140053D034/$file/0135040.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Francisco Pacheco Camacho was an exemplary prisoner. Pacheco says that number is fifty four days. This appeal is about the disputed seven days.1 I A federal prisoner may receive
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/717220B969A38A5588256E5A00707D69/$file/0135040.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Francisco Pacheco Camacho was an exemplary prisoner. Pacheco says that number is fifty four days. This appeal is about the disputed seven days.1 I A federal prisoner may receive
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-5135.htm">98-5135 -- IWANSKI V. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 12/14/1999<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff sought damages resulting from Iwanski's death while he was incarcerated at Northeastern Oklahoma Correctional Center (NOCC). Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iwanski and Kevin White were incarcerated at NOCC. Which was adjacent to NOCC. Because the rooms at Adams Hall were larger than those previously used at NOCC. The two foot long metal pipes previously used to stack the beds were placed into the closet of each of the inmates' rooms. <p> On February 4. The building in which Iwanski was housed. Questioned whether White was still housed in Building 14. Where Iwanski was sleeping. When the guards were notified that Iwanski was injured. Alleged that numerous Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Iwanski's safety. By improperly performing the procedures that were required. She alleged also that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Iwanski's medical needs after the attack.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/952476P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
From June 1989 to August 1989 Tokar is an HIV positive individual. and again from September 1991 to November 1991. He was an inmate at the Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC) housed in The Honorable Scott O. A segregated unit for HIV positive inmates.2 Armontrout was warden of JCCC from January 2. Drennen was the hospital administrator of JCCC from November 2. Trickey was the department's director of classification and treatment from October 15. He also alleged that conditions of confinement in the unit violated his Eighth Amendment The action was stayed After the stay was lifted. The court held that appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court held that appellees were not entitled to qualified immunity on Tokar's conditions of confinement claims and allowed Tokar to restate his claims. Among other things Tokar alleged he Tokar was an inmate in JCCC from June 15. Tokar continued to live in Unit Six for some time after it was desegregated. 2 2 had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because the unit had broken windows.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6249.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner was awarded 1. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. The number of earned credits an inmate receives is based on his classification in one of four security class levels. Once a prisoner is assigned a particular classification. He is entitled to earn the specified number of credits for that classification. Each earned credit is equal to one day of incarceration. The ODOC policy concerning prisoner misconduct read as follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC917E1F5A32304B882571220083A92C/$file/0435280.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 2048 ROLES v. Whether the confiscation of magazines is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062485P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kahle alleges that Malone violated her constitutional rights while she was detained at the Pennington County Jail in Rapid City. Was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk that she would be sexually assaulted by correctional officer Jermaine Leonard. Malone will not be protected by qualified immunity. He was scheduled for two weeks of classroom study and six weeks of supervised. That Kahle's version of the facts is true. While Kahle was being held at the Jail. While Leonard was still completing his on the job training. Was asked to supervise Leonard that evening. Malone was supposed to observe Leonard closely and ensure that Leonard did not act improperly. The cells in the Jail were locked down and the lights turned off. Jail policy recognized that the entry of a correctional officer into a cell after lockdown was an unusual and (literally) noteworthy event. If a cell door was opened after lockdown for any reason. Malone was responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the shift log. Kahle's cell was located on the upper level of cell block 5.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-3255.htm">00-3255 -- REED V. MCKUNE -- 07/26/2002<BR></A><BR>
He alleges that his constitutional rights have been violated by prison officials who have ordered him either to participate in Kansas's Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062240np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clyde Mansfield was convicted of murder by an Air Force court martial and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mansfield was again convicted of murder and re sentenced to life imprisonment. Mansfield was transferred to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and confined at the United States Penitentiary. Mansfield was employed at the Unicor Federal Prison Industry at Lewisburg. Mansfield was transferred from Lewisburg to the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield. He was transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Butner. He was returned to Lewisburg where. While Mansfield was at Butner. When he was transferred back to Lewisburg his habeas petition was During the pendency of this action. Mansfield claimed that he was entitled to an earlier release because he had been denied good time credit and the Commission had failed to set a mandatory parole date. Finding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/03-6003.htm">03-6003 -- GODLOCK V. FATKIN -- 12/16/2003<BR></A><BR>
We are reminded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/961018P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before the merits of the case were heard. Prison Officials appeal the district court's finding on the ground that it is clearly erroneous and establishes a bad precedent. Goff claimed that the harsh disciplinary sanctions associated with lockup were violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Which was granted on September 13. The class is comprised of all persons who have been. Are now. Or will be confined in ISP lockup. A second trial was held in March and May of 1996. 4) the violation of the Eighth Amendment resulting from the pandemonium and bedlam the mentally stable inmates must suffer because they are intermingled with the mentally ill inmates who either cannot or do not control their behavior. 4 The court directed Prison Officials to file a Plan to remedy the constitutional violations at ISP. The court approved the fourth Plan filed by Prison Officials.1 Major changes were implemented by Prison Officials in response to the constitutional violations found by the court. The State of Iowa is building a ten million dollar.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0774n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the City violated Harbin's rights under the Constitution by failing to provide or secure adequate medical attention for him while he was in the custody of the Detroit Police Department (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0390p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is barred by the Tenth Amendment. Factual and statutory background Much of the factual and procedural background of the cases is set forth in our prior opinion and that of the Supreme Court. Is not repeated here. Are therefore set forth in some detail below. 1. That laws of general applicability that incidentally burden religious conduct are not subject to strict scrutiny review under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1585.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Furrow alleged that his constitutional rights were violated (1) by the suspension of his visitation privileges with his girlfriend. Their cross motion was accompanied by a statement of material facts which entirely adopted Furrow's statement. These claims all are insubstantial. Courts have upheld prison regulations curtailing inmates' right to possess intimate photographs of loved ones where the government demonstrated that legitimate penological interests were reasonably served thereby. There is no dispute that the seized photographs were obtained in violation of valid prison rules. The confiscation of the photographs 4 reasonably served the prison's interest in ensuring that its rules are observed. It is well settled that a prisoner does not enjoy a right of privacy in the prisoner's cell sufficient to confer fourth amendment protection against confiscation without a warrant of the prisoner's personal property. Prisoner grievances involving visitation privileges and confiscation of photographs obviously are not nearly weighty enough to implicate the eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0186p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Appellee Chad Ruimveld was charged with poisoning a prison guard while he was an inmate at a Michigan prison. Ruimveld was shackled in view of the jury. The Michigan state courts found that this shackling was improper. That it was harmless error. On the ground that the shackling was highly prejudicial to his trial. Because the presumption of innocence is a central tenet of the American justice system. It was found that a cleaning agent used in the prison had been added to Snyder's coffee. Two inmates were out of their cells performing cleaning duties with the cleaning agent at issue: Billy Sirrene and Petitioner Appellee Chad Ruimveld. Ruimveld was charged with poisoning. Ruimveld's trial was held in a special courtroom inside the prison that was regularly used to avoid transporting prisoners to an outside court. The evidence against Ruimveld was entirely circumstantial. Neither could be certain as to whether this was before or after Snyder poured her coffee. Ruimveld was brought into the courtroom in leg shackles.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1347.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is. The action was assigned to a magistrate judge who entered an order directing the clerk of court to initiate a civil action and directing Montana to cure certain deficiencies in his filings. Montana was ordered to file both his complaint and motion to proceed IFP on the proper forms and. To submit a certified (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined. <hr> copy of his inmate trust fund account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the initiation of his action. Montana was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure all of the deficiencies within 30 days. We remanded to the district court for its consideration of Montana's argument that his failure to cure deficiencies was caused by prison officials who stymied his efforts by failing or refusing to provide him with the requisite certified account statement. In order for the magistrate judge to calculate an initial partial filing fee in the event Montana were granted leave to proceed IFP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC6EA756598A684F8825712B007267A8/$file/0415882.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal and hold the district court erred in adopting the magistrate's Findings and Recommendations because (1) Mr. Was deliberate indifference. Conduct was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Jett's need to have his fractured thumb set and placed in a permanent cast. Peterson and Warden Pliler were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Jett is entitled to an inference that these individuals received the letters Mr. Jett stated a cause of action under California Government Code § 845.6 because this statute requires medical care to be summoned for an inmate who needs immediate medical care to have a fractured bone set and cast. Because the injury occurred on a Saturday and there were no doctors on staff at the prison. Jett was taken to Mercy Hospital emergency room in Folsom. Where he was seen by Dr. The written aftercare instructions were given to a medical technical assistant. Jett was seen at the prison by Charles I. Jett's hand was still too swollen to place in a permanent cast.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2002/995556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That he was deprived of his constitutional right to due process because his request for a predeprivation hearing was ignored. Section 2C:43 3.1 expressly requires a New Jersey Superior Court to order the Department of Corrections to collect a VCCB fine from the personal account of an inmate if the assessment was not paid at the time of sentencing.1 1. 000.00 for each such crime for which he was convicted which resulted in the injury or death of another person. . . . When a defendant who is sentenced to incarceration in a State correctional facility has not. Paid an assessment for the crime for which he is being sentenced or an assessment imposed for a previous crime. Higgins was transferred from the Monmouth County Correctional Center Facility to the ADTC. He was advised that he would receive a check for benefits due from January 1. Higgins was notified during mail call by an ADTC employee that the check had arrived. He was not handed the check nor did he authorize any prison employee to deposit it in his inmate account.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3204.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appeals the dismissal of his pro se (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The court stated that it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0054p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The magistrate judge to whom the case was transferred dismissed Herron's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Finding that the majority of Herron's claims did not allege sufficient facts to constitute unlawful retaliation and the remainder of his claims were barred by issue preclusion due to prior suits that Herron had brought. Several months after the briefs in this appeal were filed. With the exception of demonstrating that his assistance was needed by Muhammad. That he was subsequently disciplined to a degree that might deter an ordinary person from such conduct. That the two incidents were causally linked. He will have established all three elements of a prima facie claim of unconstitutional retaliation. Which was raised in both his original and supplemental complaints. Herron is more specific in his second supplemental complaint. Herron alleged that prison officials were then in the process of transferring him to another institution in retaliation for his attempts to seek legal redress against them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/723C4A805146B7E2882571F00078CBFF/$file/0435514.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Slip opinion at 7625 and published at 455 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended as follows: Page 7641 of the slip opinion. Last two sentences of the first full paragraph: replace:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1444p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court found that the Inmates' RFRA claim was untimely. I. The Inmates are members of the Sunni Muslim religion. All Muslim sects are invited to attend services. Claiming that there are fundamental differences between the Muslim sects that prevent them from worshiping together in one service. The Sunni Muslim sect at SCI Huntingdon approximates 75 in number and is one of the two largest at the institution. The Inmates claim that several empty rooms are available at the prison at times when they wish to worship. That they are one of the larger Muslim sects in the installation. Who are provided facilities for separate services at Huntingdon. Stating that the institution did not have the space or the resources to accommodate separate worship services. The Inmates submitted numerous unsworn written statements by prisoners asserting that the teachings of the institution's current Muslim worship service leader are in direct contradiction to their faith. Dress Code and teachings of Iman Wallace Deem Muhammad) which are in direct conflict with the four (4) School's [sic] of Thought of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-6236.man.html">KIRBY V. SIEGELMAN (11/17/1999, NO. 98-6236)<BR></A><BR>
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it determined that Kirby's claim was not ripe. The district court determined that Edmond's challenge to the Community Notification Statute was not ripe. We affirm the district court as to Kirby because his claim is not ripe. We remand the case to the district court because the record is inadequate for us to determine whether he received adequate notice and hearing to satisfy due process requirements. We affirm the district court as to Edmond's remaining claims.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</EM></CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>KIRBY</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Kirby is an inmate in custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21927B11E3B07C88825717F0076B726/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6236.man.html">KIRBY V. SIEGELMAN (11/17/1999, NO. 98-6236)<BR></A><BR>
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it determined that Kirby's claim was not ripe. The district court determined that Edmond's challenge to the Community Notification Statute was not ripe. We affirm the district court as to Kirby because his claim is not ripe. We remand the case to the district court because the record is inadequate for us to determine whether he received adequate notice and hearing to satisfy due process requirements. We affirm the district court as to Edmond's remaining claims.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</EM></CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>KIRBY</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Kirby is an inmate in custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/955107DE045454F7882571F7004DD70F/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyMzQtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3234-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Believed that the medically appropriate course of treatment was to prescribe him the new regimen of hepatitis C medication. Taken most favorably to the plaintiff are as follows. Is an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1823.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gil is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oxford. Is not for the squeamish. James Reed is a physician who serves as clinical director at FCI Oxford. Jaime Penaflor is a physician's assistant at that same facility. Gil was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0406p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will only briefly address the merits of the claim against defendants Crump. Plaintiff alleges cruel and unusual punishment in that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety by not allowing him to use the toilet. We have previously held that deprivations of fresh water and access to the toilet for a 20 hour period. Were not cruel and unusual punishment. That adequate toilet breaks and opportunities to drink were provided to plaintiff while he was in restraints and that he took advantage of them at least once on the morning of May 3. Is an inmate at Ionia corrections facility in Michigan. Plaintiff was placed on top of bed restraints for eighteen hours after he damaged his cell. He alleges that he was not allowed to eat. Have fresh water or access to the toilet during that time. (2) that defendants Vidor and Mowatt violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they intentionally discriminated against him by putting him in hard restraints while a white inmate who had damaged his cell was placed in soft restraints and (3) that the actions of all five defendants in denying him access to the toilet and fresh water for eighteen hours constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0305p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inmates in Ohio correctional facilities who were sentenced prior to Ohio's enactment of a revised sentencing system on July 1. Ohio inmates were given an indeterminate sentence comprised of a minimum and a maximum sentence. Parole decisions were delegated to the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-1184.htm">99-1184 -- NORTHINGTON V. ZAVARAS -- 08/10/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In this prisoner civil rights action. Northington was an authorized inmate representative. Northington attempted to defend Hispanic inmates by arguing that the accusations against them were racially motivated. The magistrate judge concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Northington's federal claims. Summary judgment is appropriate only when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/011813P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The riot was quelled quickly. All inmates were returned to their cells. After the unit was secure. A cell by cell search for weapons and contraband was ordered. Were activated and instructed to impose Temporary Administrative Segregation Confinement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5346a.html">DANIEL J. LEVITAN V. JOHN ASHCROFT<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause as amicus curiae on the side of appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DECB4324194F520D88256B0A007A5302/$file/0055523.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 after holds were placed upon his inmate trust account. His principal 1 The officials are: Barbara Heiss. We will refer to them as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9CEE98C2E2BCB87488256E5A00707D53/$file/0055523.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 after holds were placed upon his inmate trust account. His principal 1 The officials are: Barbara Heiss. We will refer to them as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/96-6124.htm">96-6124 -- MCALPINE V. THOMPSON -- 08/12/1999<BR></A><BR>
McAlpine is a restricted Osage Indian and a member of the Native American Church. He was incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in El Reno. The denial of which is the subject of the present appeal. McAlpine completed his term of incarceration and was released from El Reno Prison Camp. The Warden now claims that McAlpine's claims have been mooted.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BE9F56E8C7E860988256C09005AC61F/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 10912 HALLETT v. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district court's denial of their discovery motion. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. Defendants responded by arguing that Plaintiffs had not complied with the notice provisions of the Judg1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. 10914 HALLETT v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/297A1A7ADEF7DA1188256BA600804D86/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district 1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. When it became apparent that more time was necessary. The court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an extension of the Judgment. MORGAN 6339 scope of the evidentiary hearing on extension is therefore a question of law to be reviewed de novo.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953289P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Goff was incarcerated at the John Bennett Correctional Center (the correctional center). Was transferred to the medical unit at the penitentiary for treatment of an injury that he reported had occurred from falling off the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F473982DAB14C7CA88256BF90059EC91/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6360. That is because the consent decree that is the subject of Plaintiffs' contempt motion expired on January 5. Is no longer in effect. 190 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that extension of jurisdiction over a terminated consent decree is an inappropriate remedy for past civil contempt). 10 Because the district court twice extended its jurisdiction over the Judgment. The medical services provisions were in effect until January 5. The date on which the court's final judgment was entered. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063651P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which concludes that Missouri's lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional. I. Michael Anthony Taylor pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death in Missouri state court for the abduction. Brutal murder of 15 year old Ann Harrison.1 His convictions and sentence have withstood judicial scrutiny on direct appeal. The timeliness of which was not contested. A 5 gram dose of sodium pentothal (also known as thiopental) was injected to render the inmate unconscious. A 60 milligram dose of pancuronium bromide was administered to paralyze the inmate's muscles. A 240 milliequivalent injection of potassium chloride was injected to stop the heart. Taylor now asserts that Missouri's procedure creates a significant risk that he might suffer the 1 We will not here recount the facts of his crime as they are not relevant to this 2 appeal. wanton infliction of pain because if the first chemical. He will feel the pain of the third chemical. Which indisputably will cause an excruciating burning sensation as it travels through his veins to induce a heart attack.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3295_036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. Cannon claims he was taken to a segregation cell. Cannon says that the next day he was taken into the shower by a group of officers and again ordered to strip naked and submit to an anal cavity search. Was again beaten and forcibly searched. Cannon was transferred to the Shawnee Correctional Center. Cannon claims he was taken into a shower room. Beaten until he was semiconscious. Cannon was again taken to the shower room and ordered to submit to yet another anal cavity search. After the search Cannon was immediately transferred to the Menard Correctional Center. He was sanctioned with a two month demotion in credit earning class and a transfer to a maximum security unit. Because he was housed at the time at Menard and his grievance concerned events at other institutions. It was returned. Cannon stated that his grievance was delayed because Menard officials confiscated his personal papers on November 12 and did not return them until December 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0078p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Greene is a male to female transsexual. She was preoperative. Was undergoing hormone therapy. Greene was placed in the Protective Custody Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0085p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issues before us in this interlocutory appeal are (1) whether a death row inmate's claim against lethal injection itselfas opposed to a precursor procedureis properly considered to be a habeas action or one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When execution is imminent or at some earlier stage in state and federal 1 RICHARD WADE COOEY. (3) whether res judicata is a bar to a death row inmate's claim concerning the means and methods of execution when similar issues were raised. Or the specific claim could have been raised. The sodium thiopental is designed to anesthetize the prisoner and render him unconscious. Dennis and Cooey asserted that if the sodium thiopental is not administered properly and in sufficient dosage. They also maintained that to subject the prisoner to such excruciating pain while he is still conscious would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. They also alleged that the personnel attending to the executions are inadequately trained and. As to the issue of whether Cooey's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16A5AC9C4E485C6A882571A80075EAB4/$file/0435514.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: Albert Roy and Phillip Kephart were both convicted of crimes in Oregon state court. The federal district court dismissed both of their federal habeas petitions as untimely because they were filed after the one year statute of limitations period created by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-1429.htm">96-1429 -- GARRETT V. HAWK -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR>
1291 and reverse. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> While he was imprisoned in the United States Penitentiary. He also alleged that he suffered a total shoulder separation as a result and was denied treatment for two months. 1983 (1994) in states with certified administrative remedies were governed by the exhaustion requirements of the former 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1395.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lusero] to any procedural protection either before or after he was placed in administrative segregation because he does not (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Lusero does not challenge this ruling on appeal. <hr> have a protected liberty interest in his classification or placement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-3041a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Evelina J. With him on the briefs was Wilma A. Is that time limitation subject to equitable tolling? If it is. Then is either appellant entitled to such tolling based upon the equity of his case? 1996 must have filed his s 2255 motion within one year of that date. We hold that regard less whether this limitation is subject to equitable tolling a question we need not decide today the cases before us do not warrant such relief. (2) the date on which the impediment to making a mo tion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed. If the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action. (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. Or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Cicero and Thorne ask us to excuse the tardiness of their motions on the ground that they were impeded from timely filing their s 2255 motions by government actions beyond their control.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-5346a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Richard P. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: Appellants are federal prisoners who are practicing Catholic Christians. Prison officials have allowed inmates to consume wine under supervision during Communion. Only the supervising chaplain is per mitted to consume the wine. A prison regulation that impinges on inmates' constitutional rights is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penolog ical interests. The District Court granted summary judgment for the prison officials on the ground that consuming wine during Communion is not an essential aspect of appellants' religious practice. I. Background Appellants are incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola. They are self described Catholic Christians who were baptized as children. Which is also called Holy Communion. Communion is traditionally adminis tered by a priest. This transformation is called transubstantiation. Appellants stated their belief that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5205.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. I. Background(2) Nutter was charged in Oklahoma state court with inter alia Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) and Escape from Legal Custody. Nutter was convicted of the DUI count and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. Nutter was transported to the Lexington Assessment Center where he was classified as minimum security and received a security point of 1. Nutter was transferred to the Northeastern Oklahoma Correctional Center (NEOCC) for housing. He was again classified as minimum security with a security point of 1. He was also recommended for promotion to Class Level 3 in July 2004. He was determined to be eligible for community corrections confinement in August 2004. Nutter was apparently promoted to Class Level 3.(4) In August 2004. They were not introduced in the district court. We cannot review them and are limited to the record below.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-1135.htm">01-1135 -- GOMETZ V. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION -- 06/27/2002<BR></A><BR>
Together with the year and length of sentence are as follows: assaulting an inmate (1980. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the Eighth Amendment issue addressed in Judge Barkett's dissenting opinion. Those are intended to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-8854.opa.html">HILL V. DEKALB REGIONAL YOUTH DETENTION CTR.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hill v. The district court determined that the individual governmental defendants were ineligible for qualified immunity. Was in the custody of the Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/994013.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to announce the burden of proof that a prisoner must shoulder when he alleges that prison officials have retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights. Is an inmate serving his eighth year of a five to ten year sentence for a drug related offense. Although the former decision is not challenged on appeal. Among the programs Rauser was r equired to complete were Alcoholics Anonymous (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413083ORD.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the Eighth Amendment issue addressed in Judge Barkett's dissenting opinion. Those are intended to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-8854.opa.html">HILL V. DEKALB REGIONAL YOUTH DETENTION CTR.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hill v. The district court determined that the individual governmental defendants were ineligible for qualified immunity. Was in the custody of the Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/003411P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 1 jury found in favor of Pamela Riley in her failure to protect action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sebek was the ICIW security director for over 16 years. She was responsible for maintaining prison security and overseeing security staff. Barbara Olk Long was the warden at the prison. Which included ensuring that adequate security measures were in place and making prison personnel decisions. Pamela Riley was an inmate at the ICIW where she served time for a probation violation resulting from a forgery conviction. ICIW Correctional Officer Robert Link was employed by the prison during Riley's incarceration. Link's inappropriate activity with Riley began in October 1995 when he questioned Riley as to whether she was having a sexual relationship with her roommate at the facility and if so. Who was a known bisexual. Link still was able to kiss her. She was afraid of becoming pregnant by Link's actions and wanted him to stop touching her.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/001986u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the grant of summary judgment on the expungement claims and reverse on the employment discrimination and retaliation claims. It is. Williams was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. A Presentence Report (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0097p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both an ambulance and a police car were dispatched to the scene. As Johnson was bleeding severely. While the medical personnel were caring for him. The police discovered that there was an outstanding warrant for Johnson's arrest.2 Johnson was then transferred from the ambulance to the police car. Johnson did not have a good memory of what took place during that emergency room visit. That he was to return for surgery in three to seven days (because the tendons needed some time to harden before surgery was performed). Johnson was transferred from St. Bears the Johnson is the husband of Plaintiff Appellant Christie R. The complaint was never amended to allege specific claims against the John Doe defendants. It does not appear that any of the John Doe defendants were ever served with process. Although it is not entirely clear from the record. The police were apparently acting on a warrant for Johnson's arrest on domestic violence charges. It may have been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953725P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was assaulted by another inmate while incarcerated at the Omaha Correctional Center (OCC). A few months Kilgore was later. I will advise you. That I have a relationship with his Kilgore discussed the situation with his superiors and Prater reiterated his prior stating.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1400p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this long running litigation aspects of which have been before this court before appellants. All of whom we will refer to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939282.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a § 1983 action brought by a prisoner. Claiming that he was subjected to disciplinary sanctions in violation of his procedural due process rights. Was sanctioned in prison disciplinary proceedings for fighting with another inmate. Williams was charged in a prison disciplinary report (filed by prison official Ronald Fountain) with the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-2190.htm">96-2190 -- PETERSON V. SHANKS -- 07/15/1998<BR></A><BR>
His right to have access to the courts. Peterson was housed at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility. Peterson was placed in segregation for allegedly attempting to escape from prison. I'm going to fuck you for each and every suit you have done against me and the prison. Peterson spent forty nine days in segregation and was removed from the honor unit of the prison. That the charge was dismissed on appeal for lack of evidence. <p> On March 18. Seeking to have the Warden removed from office. Peterson began pursuing an appeal in the case. <p> Peterson alleges that Warden Shanks was angry with him for filing the March 18 lawsuit. Peterson was removed from an inmate child visitation program (the Impact Program). He was denied a vegetarian diet that he allegedly required for an unidentified religious faith. Peterson was again placed in segregation. Although Peterson now contends that he was not at risk from other inmates at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility. Peterson was transferred to the Penitentiary of New Mexico on November 22.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0410p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although it was error to admit the testimony under the standard set forth by this court in Wolfel v. Because it was not relevant to the proof developed by the probative evidence. There was no unfair prejudice to Officer Whitlow. The credibility and veracity of the witness testimony implicating Officer Whitlow was not significantly enhanced by the reference to the possibility of a polygraph exam because the testimony at issue was fully corroborated by the statements given by former Officer Moore. There was considerable evidence. That the assault could not have occurred without. Officer Whitlow being put on notice that something was awry. Rule 61 of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires us on appeal to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/983578.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The second concerns the District Court's use of the doctrine of laches to prevent McGlory from challenging a forfeiture proceeding in which the notice given for the forfeiture is later discovered to be constitutionally inadequate. 2 In the first appeal. The government directed notice by certified mail to the facility in which McGlory was incarcerated. That the government should have ensured that he received personal notification of the proceedings against his property. Which involved different property of McGlory's that was subject to administrative forfeiture. In whose custody McGlory was held. Due process requires that when a person is in the government's custody and detained at a place of its choosing. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9F548C4220E69988256E8C005AC501/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5A1535FB482F685E88256F930058B6D7/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 5831 insert the following language at the end of the first paragraph: We do not hold that humanizing. WOODFORD The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3193_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wisconsin prisoner Joseph Koutnik brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an employee of the prison in which he is incarcerated seized an article of his outgoing mail. Koutnik is confined at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. Northern Sun invites design proposals for its products and pays royalties if an idea is marketed successfully. Koutnik's letter encouraged Northern Sun to add communist themed posters to its product line and also suggested developing a line of small posters targeted at inmates who are prohibited by prison regulations from possessing stickers and large posters. Koutnik also wrote:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2820_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seeking reinstatement of the jury's verdict. 2 No. 05 2820 Freeman is serving a 58 year sentence in Wisconsin's maximum security prison (nicknamed the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/97-1023.htm">97-1023 -- CHAMBERS V. COLORADO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 03/07/2000<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3EAFBA3AC5722E98825703F0002ABCC/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brown is substituted for her predecessor. We filed an opinion in this case holding that there is a reasonable probability that as a result of instructional error the jury did not consider constitutionally mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. Payton was a postAEDPA case and was decided under the highly deferential AEDPA standard. While the case before us is pre AEDPA and is determined by the application of the ordinary rules of constitutional interpretation. BROWN habeas corpus only if the state court was objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Such is not the case when AEDPA does not apply. If anything about AEDPA is clear. It is that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013368P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was sprayed in the face with capstun pepper spray by correctional officer James Morgan and thrown to the floor by Lieutenant J. Since this interlocutory appeal is from the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment. He was summoned to Lieutenant Beaty's office and asked to sign a 401 form acknowledging that the radio had been confiscated. Officer Morgan was on duty at the office and gave Treats the form. Treats explained to Morgan that he did not want a copy and that it was not mandatory that he take it. Where he was handcuffed. He was taken to the infirmary afterwards where his eyes and skin were flushed with water. Several days later he returned to the infirmary because he was suffering from pain in his ear. The regulations state that an officer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-8013.htm">98-8013 -- BASHAM V. UPHOFF -- 12/08/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Appellant Roger Basham. Holding that the complaint was legally frivolous. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p> Plaintiff is a Wyoming state inmate confined in the Arizona State Prison pursuant to an interstate compact. Although the case was filed in federal district court in May 1997. 1915A must occur
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-4122.htm">02-4122 -- DEXTER V. FORD MOTOR CO. -- 02/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
The cases are consolidated on appeal. Dexter was an inmate at the Utah State Prison where Galetka served as warden. Bosko and Sanns were correctional officers at the prison. The prison had a policy that all inmates in transport were to be seatbelted. Because the inmates were handcuffed and shackled. They were unable to seatbelt themselves. Galetka was aware that officers routinely failed to seatbelt inmates in transport. Bosko was speeding. His attention was diverted from the highway when he reached for food or drink. Dexter is now a quadriplegic. <p> <em><strong>District Court</strong></em> <p> <strong><em> </strong></em>In his amended complaint. Concluding Dexter clearly established his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by failure to seatbelt coupled with reckless operation of the transport vehicle. 911 (10<sup>th</sup> Cir.) (standard of review of a 12(b)(6) dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity is de novo).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-7102.htm">99-7102 -- SMITH V. SAFFLE -- 11/28/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/00-12150.man.html">HOPE V. PELZER (2/2/2001, NO. 00-12150)<BR></A><BR>
We decide whether an inmate's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when prison guards handcuffed him to a hitching post on two occasions. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant prison guards because they were entitled to qualified immunity. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/00-12150.man.html">HOPE V. PELZER (2/2/2001, NO. 00-12150)<BR></A><BR>
We decide whether an inmate's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when prison guards handcuffed him to a hitching post on two occasions. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant prison guards because they were entitled to qualified immunity. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E67E664DE6DAEE5388256DE4000107D8/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is hereby amended. Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1845B4A48AADBA1D88256D63007AEC0D/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0847p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jones alleged that he was sexually assaulted by his two cellmates and that. Appointment of counsel was not warranted. The court determined that Jones was capable of adequately representing himself. I. Before we address the propriety of the district court's order issuing a writ of habeas corpus to produce a prisoner who will act as a lay assistant at a civil trial. We must first decide whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal at this stage of the district court proceedings. Hagler asserts that we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. An interlocutory order is immediately appealable if it conclusively determines the matter in issue. Is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. It is not immediately appealable. Although the collateral order doctrine is a narrow exception. We are convinced that the three requirements are met here. The conclusiveness prong of the test is satisfied because the district court issued its order in the expectation that it will be the final word on the subject.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/002939np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The report resulted in a disciplinary hearing as a result of which Burkholder was sentenced to 30 days lock up in the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU). We will affirm but on other grounds. A misconduct hearing was held. Burkholder alleges that his cell in the RHU was cold and that his malfunctioning toilet often backed up human waste into his cell. Newton violated his rights by reporting his threats to prison officials and that Maresca violated his due process rights because she was not an impartial adjudicator. The case was removed to federal court by the defendants. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review We have jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. We will not consider issues that were not ruled on by the District Court. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011463P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jinny Van Buren. 1 Ware claims that his due process rights were violated by the temporary suspension of visiting privileges for his wife and two other women. I. Certain facts material to Ware's suit are not in dispute. Ware was found in possession of contraband. One of whom was his wife. After Ware was found with contraband. Disciplinary procedures were invoked pursuant to Bureau of Prison regulations. Ware's visitation privileges should be suspended with respect to his wife and two other women who apparently were also involved in helping Ware obtain contraband goods. A copy of which was placed in Ware's file. After Ware was transferred to the Federal Corrections Institution at Forrest City. We then must inquire whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Ware argues that he has met the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry because his Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated when Warden Trammel suspended his visitation privileges without a hearing. Ware's loss of visitation privileges is within the ordinary incidents of confinement and cannot be considered an atypical and significant hardship.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2973_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While discovery was underway. I. BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this appeal Pinkston was confined at the Indiana Department of Corrections Maximum Control Complex (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABB5449C604ABF178825729E007626A3/$file/9899003withgraphic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Note 3 (after the en banc court is chosen. The judges on the panel decide whether there will be oral argument). 3113 3114 COMER v. A three judge panel of our court remanded for the District Court to determine (1) whether Comer is competent to waive further proceedings and (2) whether he has chosen to do so voluntarily. The District Court found that Comer is competent and his decision to waive further proceedings voluntary. We review the District Court's finding that Comer is competent for clear error. That we review de novo the District Court's determination that Comer's decision to waive further proceedings is voluntary.1 Accordingly. 400 (1993) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/99-4176.opn.html">DREW V. DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (7/18/2002, NO. 99-4176)<BR></A><BR>
Drew argues first that his petition was not time barred under the one year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19994176.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Drew argues first that his petition was not timebarred under the one year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1062_033.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before any of the defendants were served with the complaint. My access to courts is not adequte [sic]. Because of my inability to prepare I was Denied credit Time that I was entitled to. Fourteenth Amendment I will be Denied my Right to proceed Pro Se and my Right to be prepared for redress. So I will probably lose. Denied him a transfer to a minimum security facility (for which he says he is eligible). As follows: the constitution's guarantee of access to the courts requires state actors to assure that prisoners have access to courts to present claims concerning the legality or conditions of their confinement. . . . state actors have no duty to assure that prisoners can litigate those claims effectively once they have been raised in court. Because Marshall had not alleged
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/99-4176.opn.html">DREW V. DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (7/18/2002, NO. 99-4176)<BR></A><BR>
Drew argues first that his petition was not time barred under the one year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/021913np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case. We refer only to those facts that are pertinent to the issue of equitable tolling. 2 McKeithan was convicted by a jury of five counts of robbery. McKeithan was sentenced to five consecutive terms of ten to twenty years imprisonment for the robbery convictions. Was denied on August 7. There is no record of this alleged filing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4238_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sanctioned by the prison's Conduct Adjustment Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013873P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Blades alleged in support of it were not actionable. The prisoner ... must prove that the official was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed and that the official The Honorable Karen K. Comes was dangerous and that when they released him into the prison population they put prisoners at risk for injury. Of which the officials are aware.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033075p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A.M. was physically assaulted by other juvenile residents 2 on numerous occasions. States that A.M . was hit on the back of the head with a ping pong paddle thrown by another resident. A.M. was taken to the hospital for treatment. Other incident reports were completed by the Center's child care workers on an almost daily basis between August 2 and August 16. A.M . was thirteen years old. We will use the same designation. 2 2 1 OPINION OF THE COURT LAY. Alleging they violated his substantive due process rights by failing to protect him from harm while he was detained at the Center. The District Court's order granting summary judgment will be reversed in part and affirmed in part. A.M. was arrested in Lake Township. He was taken to the Center. Was seeing a psychiatrist in the community. The Center's administrators and supervisors were made aware of these facts upon A.M.'s admission to the Center or shortly thereafter. A.M.'s mental and behavioral problems were reflected in his behavior at the Center. A psychiatric evaluation was performed on A.M. by Dr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6245.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He alleges he was placed in solitary confinement following the assault. Alleged he was prevented from doing so by defendants. Ruling these claims were barred against these defendants under the Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity. This exhaustion requirement is mandatory and exists regardless of whether the suit involves
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0609n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Hix is a Tennessee prisoner presently incarcerated at the Riverbend Maximum Security The Honorable Harold A. The Turney Center Industrial Prison and Farm (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C081FD240551936A8825702F007EC895/$file/0256302.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a Muslim inmate at Calipatria State Prison. Hearns also claimed that he was subjected to inhumane conditions when he was later placed in HEARNS v. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An inmate at Calipatria State Prison sent a memorandum to Defendant Chief Deputy Warden Sylvia Garcia explaining that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3334.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/052165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/951169P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Jerry Campbell was Chief Administrator of the Arkansas Correctional Industry (ACI). Some inmates incarcerated at the Wrightsville Unit were assigned to work at the prison Inmates assigned to the Because we find that the evidence is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. 2 warehouse were in charge of moving materials and finished products. We find it necessary to rule only on his contention that the evidence is insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment violation. 298 (1991)). the prisoner must first prove that the conditions challenged were the prisoner must prove that the prison official acted with a Id. (q of Wilson. Forkl forklift to furniture heavy aid alleged these conditions. (1) inmates were not issued safety equipment such as har e had no backup warning beeper. The inmates the employees at the warehouse about No written grievances were ever filed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07B31316E7A2504588256DF80055A88A/$file/0117527.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1 II BACKGROUND Bruce is serving a life sentence in the California penal system. When Bruce was transferred to North Kern State Prison in The district court also stayed discovery. An investigation of his alleged association with the Black Guerilla Family (BGF) was undertaken by the Institutional Gang Investigator (IGI). Bruce was transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison. He was again advised that this evidence was insufficient to conclude he was a BGF member. He was transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison. He was placed in administrative segregation for one month for committing a battery on another inmate. He was retained in administrative segregation pending an investigation of his alleged affiliation with the BGF. Bruce met with IGI Washington who informed Bruce he was being validated as a BGF member. Washington allegedly told Bruce he was being validated. The evidence used to make the validation was the same evidence that had been found to constitute insufficient evidence of gang membership in the two prior investigations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1382.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/012574P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury was given a single charge for both federal and state claims. Hill was arrested for public intoxication while walking home from a bar in Nevada. Her blood alcohol content was measured at .306 g/dL. Michael Miller and Jennifer Holmes were on duty at the jail when a police officer. Who is not a defendant in this action. Hill was uncooperative during the booking process. Written jail policy states that prisoners placed in the padded cell are not allowed to wear normal clothing but instead must wear a paper gown or nothing at all. Hill claims that she was not offered the gown and that Miller observed her remove her clothing. Hill was naked while in the padded cell. She was quiet. Miller and Holmes claim that they were concerned that Hill was going to hurt herself. The defendants claim that the decision was made for Hill's safety and that they decided to make the move at that time in part because the transfer required a greater number of guards than were on duty for each shift. The practice was to do so without regard to the prisoner's state of dress.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061274np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ARE ALL SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. Foreman contends that the District Court erred in finding that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 I. He is now serving a 235 month prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton. The proper shower chair for a T 5 paraplegic is a roll in chair with a padded surface. He claimed it was inadequate because it did not have lateral supports or a center opening. Foreman's repeated verbal requests for a different chair were denied. Foreman claimed it was not the proper chair for a T 5 paraplegic because it did not have lateral supports. The prison contended that lateral supports were unnecessary because the shower itself had railings which Foreman could use to balance himself while washing. The prison's Central Office told Foreman that the prison staff was in the process of obtaining a more appropriate chair for him. It appears from oral argument that this is still the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40249B6CEBAE5D48882570DC00768BF5/$file/0415750.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that participating in an internal affairs investigation is not sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA. Panaro was incarcerated as a pre trial detainee at the North Las Vegas Detention Center. Accompanied a prison trustee who was distributing fresh linens to the prisoners. Who was in his cell at the time. Stating that they were out of towels. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1225.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gandy is a state prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). Prison officials confiscated the letter after it was returned to Mr. Gandy was subsequently charged and found guilty of attempting to create a facility disruption in violation of the Code of Penal Discipline. He was sanctioned with ten days of punitive segregation. The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. A prisoner in a retaliation case must prove that the conduct which led to the alleged retaliation was constitutionally protected. The control of mail to and from prisoners is a necessary adjunct to penal administration. 407 08 (1989) (acknowledging that prison officials are better equipped than the judiciary to deal with the security implications of interactions between prisoners and the outside world). Regulation by prison officials is essentially an administrative matter in which the courts will not intervene.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063810np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ganim is currently serving his 108 month term of imprisonment at FCIFort Dix. After
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5201.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These are companion appeals in plaintiff appellant Harold Dean Hornsby's pro se prisoner civil rights case. Docket No. 05 5201 is an appeal from the district court's judgment in favor of defendants appellees on Eleventh Amendment grounds and for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 05 5222 is an appeal from the district court's order denying Hornsby's motion to vacate the judgment. That error was harmless because Hornsby failed to state a legally viable claim for relief. Background Hornsby is an inmate at Oklahoma's R. Jones is substituted in his official capacity for Ron Ward. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211994.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Matthew Morgan was beaten and injured by three other inmates. Matthew Morgan was arrested and incarcerated in the Toombs County Jail.1 Morgan had been arrested for two misdemeanors. Morgan asked for and was assigned to cell 5. Where his friends from the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/961009P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court granted an injunction and ordered the defendants The is to allow prisoners to send legal mail to inmates in other facilities. returned to their owner when held by a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2001_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
David Woods is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on May 4. OE This decision was originally released as an unpublished order. Minor punctuation and grammar changes have been made. 2 I. Woods was convicted of murder and robbery and was sentenced to death. Woods was granted leave to intervene on April 10. (3) an irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314304.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Police officers were called to the residence of Mary Jewel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B3CEEC82D3324EE882571E7007F8397/$file/9899003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found Comer to have competently and voluntarily waived his habeas appeal right. We hold that Comer's sentence was invalid and hereby grant the writ of habeas corpus based on the violation of Comer's due process rights that occurred when he was sentenced to death while nearly naked. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Crime The facts of this case are deeply disturbing. It is unclear whether Pritchard died immediately from the The facts related to Comer's crime. Conviction are largely taken from the Supreme Court of Arizona's 1990 decision in this case. Remembering from their earlier encounter that Jones and Smith were in possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Jones managed to escape while Comer was fixing his truck. She was later picked up by a passing motorist and taken to the sheriff's home. SCHRIRO Charges Comer and Willis were charged in Maricopa County with the first degree murder and armed robbery of Pritchard and the armed robbery. Comer was charged with two counts of sexual abuse and three counts of sexual assault of Jones.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/952708P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Weir is a practicing fundamentalist Christian and. Weir is a member of a particular sect of fundamentalists that believes in the doctrine of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0291p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Page 2 who pose an extreme escape risk or who have a clearly demonstrated history of violent acts toward other prisoners and staff. Sibert concluded from his investigation that the allegations were baseless. He was the only person with authority to order redactions. Stamping each page with a statement identifying that it was being delivered to the prisoner. Because it was not marked for possible redaction. Thus was not ruled on by Jackson. This information would be exempt from release and would not have been given to prisoners under internal prison policy and the department's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) policy. Lowery stated in an affidavit that if he had noticed the social security numbers he would have removed them. Prisoners have threatened and taunted the officers. Often incorporating the plaintiffs' social security numbers (which they have committed to memory) into the taunts. Prisoners have even accurately described plaintiffs' children to them. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Fritz Jackson because it found he was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1362.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Michael Whitington. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Whitington filed a 1983 action asserting his constitutional rights were violated because (1) officials of the Colorado Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0626n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of which were based upon their assertions of qualified The Honorable Jerome Farris. Is a privately employed physicians' assistant. Cook was permitted to eat breakfast and lunch. The only drinks he received were two eight once cartons of milk. Cook was required to participate in calisthenics and a three mile outdoor
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/99/99-2658.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jenkie Bunn is a federal prisoner who does not want the U.S. prison authorities to notify local law enforcement personnel upon his release of the fact that he was convicted of a crime of violence. Is to decide whether Bunn brought * Joyce K. Conley is substituted as respondent for Keith E. What he did was to file an action for declaratory relief to prevent the Warden of United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute. Where he was then incarcerated. Jenkie Bunn was seen chasing two men with a shotgun and firing upon them. He was found guilty and sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release. His projected release date is November 4. Bunn was placed in confinement at USP Terre Haute. Lappin was. Lappin was replaced by Keith E. Bunn was transferred to FCI Beckley. Where the warden is Joyce K. (Despite the fact that Bunn was transferred to a place outside this circuit. The jurisdiction of the district court and hence our appellate jurisdiction is determined by his place of incarceration No. 99 2658 3 at the time the suit was filed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-7106.htm">03-7106 -- HOOVER V. WEST -- 02/19/2004<BR></A><BR>
1983 while he was incarcerated. Assaulted and battered Plaintiff while he was wearing full restraints during his cellmate's cell abstraction. Defendants have since conceded that the Warden's office made a mistake regarding this rationale. As no other previous grievance was filed regarding this incident. <p> Plaintiff then appealed the issue to the Administrative Review Authority (ARA). The Exhaustion Requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act</strong> <strong>(PLRA)</strong> <p> The general rule is that plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies before filing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAxNjgtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0168-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) that plaintiff's suit is not barred by the rule of Preiser v. Which is incorrect in certain respects. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 district court defines the contours of that right. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDcgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-0047%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0380994B9F8B8363882572D600003E94/$file/0615167.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: We are called upon to decide whether the Federal Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-2769.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that all of the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. We are reviewing a grant of summary judgment. Our review is de novo. John Walker was an inmate at Western Illinois Correctional Center at the time of these events. While Walker was in his bunk in his cell. He asked a correctional officer for medical care but was not allowed to go to the health care unit at that time. He was seen at the health care unit two days later by Vickie Rowlands. He complained to the nurse that he was in great pain and that the wound was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/023923P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. 3 These interlocutory appeals follow the district court's disposition of the defendants' motions for summary judgment on Daryl Davis's § 1983 claims alleging due process violations in connection with his prolonged incarceration after he was ordered released. He was transferred from county custody to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections to serve out his sentence at the Missouri state correctional facility. Had knowledge that Davis's conviction had been reversed and that he was to remain incarcerated pending a new trial. When Davis's conviction was reversed. The Department of Justice Services is a county agency and was charged with transporting Davis to the St. Davis was delivered without incident and. There were no other warrants or holds on him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/472E17A9EC1E2D1488256E1A00006CDF/$file/0235194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Afshin Bahrampour is an inmate at the Snake River Correctional Institution in Ontario. Bahrampour after the bulk mail regulation at issue was declared unconstitutional. ODC's actions were upheld. Although the restriction on the receipt of sexually explicit materials is quite detailed. Roleplaying and similar fantasy games are neither defined nor described in the regulations. When this action was initiated. Or periodicals mail
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1141.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sorokin</U> was on brief for the Federal Defender Office. Was on brief for the United States.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI0OV9vcG4ucGRm/03-249_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The judgment of the district court is affirmed because Johnson does not have a constitutional right to free postage for non legal mail. The prison directive regulating possession of stamps in the prison is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. Who was then a prisoner at Auburn Correctional Facility. Johnson alleges that because he does not have sufficient funds to purchase stamps from the prison commissary. Because DOCS Directive 4422 is reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of maintaining security and order in the prison. To determine whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving 2 party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact. We are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-1383.htm">99-1383 -- BEIERLE V. ZAVARES -- 06/12/2000<BR></A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Donald Ray Beierle. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. <p> <center><strong>Facts</center> </strong> <p> Because this case was dismissed before defendants were served or responded. The following recitation of the facts is that of Mr. He was originally incarcerated at Fremont Correctional Facility. He was placed on a waiting list to begin the program. Beierle was transferred to Arrowhead Correctional Center. Beierle was hired to work in the kitchen. He was falsely accused of giving too much attention to a . His requests were ignored. Morrow was sick that day and did not attend the . This was also the time that Mr. Beierle's work schedule was changed to include his Sabbath. His schedule was subsequently changed back to avoid his Sabbath. <p> On November 1. Beierle was working in the kitchen with Sgt. . Beierle claimed he was placed in the position of either breaking the rules by leaving his job early and unfinished.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3600.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Garriott were incarcerated in the Johnson County. No. 03 3600 Russell and Garriot were arrested on separate occasions in 2001 for minor. Non violent offenses and were taken to the Johnson County jail. They were subject to the jail's delousing policy. Each incoming inmate is handed a small cup of Liceall brand delousing shampoo and is told to apply it to his scalp and rinse it out while showering. As far as the jail is concerned. Although inmates are not told that they have this right. Lice are discovered on an inmate within the general population of the jail. The jail (because it is difficult to determine whether that inmate has spread lice to others) treats the inmate's entire cell block as if it were contaminated. Everyone on that inmate's cell block is deloused. Walls) is disinfected. This is no small task: delousing just one inmate and disinfecting his bedding and bunk area takes approximately 25 minutes. That block is disinfected as well. Although officials were unable to specify exactly when. There are some shortcomings in the jail's efforts to avoid such infestations by administering the delousing shampoo to new inmates.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1211.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. Smith was convicted of a prison disciplinary offense and. Lost his minimum wage prison job and was reclassified to administrative segregation. 2) treating him differently than other inmates whose disciplinary conviction was expunged. Smith's claims were barred (1) To the extent that Mr. Smith is also asserting a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6149.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After it was transferred to the Western District. Only three were served with the summons and complaint. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The plaintiff must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414276.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kelley alleges that warden Hicks and assistant warden Cooper were deliberately indifferent to his future health by allowing him to be exposed to harmful levels of environmental tobacco smoke (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-6073.htm">02-6073 -- BEAUDRY V. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA -- 06/17/2003<BR></A><BR>
Defendants are Corrections Corporation of America. 1983 claim for failure to exhaust and contend that the court should have given particular jury instructions in the subsequent trial. The majority of plaintiffs' PLRA related issues were not raised in the district court. We will therefore not consider whether PLRA applies to private prisons nor plaintiffs' sub issues
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-8014.htm">99-8014 -- AYERS V. UPHOFF -- 01/08/2001<BR></A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Merril Wade Ayers. Background and Dismissal of Plaintiff's First Appeal</center> <p> Plaintiff is an inmate at the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Defendants are employees of either the Wyoming Department of Corrections. We previously consolidated these appeals on our own motion. <p> We dismiss No. 99 8014 on the grounds that plaintiff's first appeal is moot given the course of the proceedings before the district court after plaintiff filed his first notice of appeal.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0472p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fazzini was arrested by the Ohio Highway Patrol for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6266.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cardoso was incarcerated at Great Plains Correctional Facility. He was called out of his cell during a shakedown. An inmate is entitled to have his term of imprisonment reduced based upon the class level to which he is assigned. Cardoso was issued a citation for coercion of staff. Cardoso was found guilty and <hr> sentenced to thirty days in administrative segregation and a loss of 180 earned credits. The grievances were ultimately denied. Each was concluded by a decision issued by defendant Guilfoyle. Should have construed his 1983 complaint as a habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241. For dispositive issues on which the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at trial. Cardoso is representing himself. Cardoso contends that the district court should have construed his claims as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Which is the proper purpose of a 2241 petition. Cardoso alleges that his constitutional rights were abridged by the reduction in his ability to earn credits against his sentence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7133.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Louis Harold Norton appeals from eight separate orders granting summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action arising out of his alleged mistreatment while he was incarcerated in the Love County jail in Marietta. He contends that there were material facts in dispute that precluded summary judgment. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> summary judgment with respect to the City of Marietta. I. Background Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Love County jail from September 2002 to March 2003. Because his excessive force claims stemmed from (1) Plaintiff does not appeal the district court's order granting the Board of Commissioner's motion for summary judgment. <hr> incidents that occurred while he was an inmate. That motion was followed on September 17. While the summary judgment motions were pending. Defendants objected to plaintiff's inclusion in the proposed pre trial order of any allegations or claims that were not in the Amended Complaint. The district (2) James Diggs was subsequently dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation. <hr> court ordered the parties to revise and resubmit the proposed pre trial order by October 28.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1309_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Approximately fifty five minutes 2 No. 05 1309 before the suicide was discovered. Collins told a correctional officer that he wanted to see the prison crisis counselor because he was feeling suicidal. As it was passed along. The information that Collins was feeling suicidal was apparently dropped and the message was transmitted as a generic request to see the crisis counselor. Collins told the officer that he was all right and could wait until the counselor arrived. Correctional officers checked on Collins twice more in the intervening thirty minutes and nothing was amiss. Brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several correctional officers at Sheridan Correctional alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk that Collins would take his own life. Collins was in his cell at the Sheridan Correctional Center. Where he was serving a five year sentence for an Illinois conviction for aggravated battery. He observed Collins staring at the wall and asked if Collins was feeling well.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0154p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issues on appeal are whether (1) the district court erred in dismissing the Middle Tennessee Reception Center (MTRC) defendants. (3) Talal's allegations of retaliation are sufficient to state a claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. I. BACKGROUND Talal is an inmate in the Turney Center Industrial Prison (TCIP) in Only. He is allergic to tobacco smoke and is housed in a non smoking unit. The MTRC defendants were dismissed pursuant to Talal's own action. The defendants have not filed a brief. 1 No. 03 6584 Talal v. Deliberate Indifference Talal's chief complaint is that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him. (b) the penal institutions have non smoking pods. Reflects a no smoking policy which is inconsistent with deliberate indifference. Mixed questions of law and fact are also reviewed de novo. Because the district court dismissed this case before the defendants were served. The facts are one sided and. Is purely legal whether Talal's complaint states a violation of clearly established law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-8095.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We deny his request for a COA and dismiss the matter. (1) This order is not binding precedent. Brown was involved in a fight with another inmate of the Wyoming State Penitentiary (WSP) which grew into a larger incident. Brown was charged with three major violations of the WSP inmate's rules: (1) assault. A disciplinary hearing was held. Brown was found guilty of all three charges. Was sentenced to eighteen months of segregation and a loss of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6054.htm">01-6054 -- WEEKES V. FLEMING -- 08/14/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Johnny Horton Weekes. Weekes asserts that he is entitled to credit for pre federal sentence time served under 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-4054.htm">03-4054 -- TIJERINA V. OFFENDER MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE -- 01/28/2004<BR></A><BR>
WILL CARLSON. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Dan Henry Tijerina. We affirm in part and reverse in part. <p> <center><u>Facts and Procedural History</u> </center> <p> Appellant is a sex offender. He was convicted of attempted forcible sodomy on a male child in 1987 and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of five years to life imprisonment. <p> Appellant filed this civil rights suit against the Utah State Prison's Offender Management Review Committee (OMR Committee) and some named and unnamed individuals. We hold that Appellant is the only proper party plaintiff. Because he is pro se. Appellant cannot represent other inmates in this suit. <p> Appellant asserts that the OMR program was implemented in December 1996 or January 1997 to replace another program of points and rewards. A plan is developed for each prisoner. Privileges are assigned according to a lettered plan. The OMR program is designated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051722np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. Maintaining false business records based on incidents occurring when he was an inmate at SCIPittsburgh (he has since been transferred). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Because we are reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss. We will affirm only if it appears no relief can be granted under any set of facts the plaintiff could prove. Jacobs' complaint was based primarily on two incidents. Inmate Eric Lyons was leaving the prison library. Chirico accused Lyons of lying and saying the materials were his. Told him he was violating prison policy by possessing another inmate's legal work when he was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-2110.htm">02-2110 -- GONZALES-LIRANZA V. NARANJO -- 10/02/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <p> Plaintiff Francisco Gonzales Liranza appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/00-1091.htm">00-1091 -- LOFTIN V. DALESSANDRI -- 01/09/2001<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Edward C. Tuberculosis in Correctional Facilities.</center> <p> TB is a communicable and potentially deadly disease that generally affects the lungs. It is spread through the air when a person with TB coughs or sneezes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1642_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was charged in a fourth superceding indictment with first degree murder. After 2 No. 05 1642 eight days of deliberations the jury was unable to reach a consensus on the murder and conspiracy to commit murder charges and they were subsequently dismissed. Sahakian was convicted of being a felon in possession of a handgun and sentenced to 360 months in federal prison. The institution is a federal maximum security prison with a well documented history of violence. Two of the more prominent gangs operating covertly at USP Marion during the time period of the late '90s were the USP Marion is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-6298.htm">02-6298 -- GRIGGS V. U.S. -- 10/17/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Steven M. Because plaintiff is challenging the execution of his sentence. We further conclude that plaintiff was required to file his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8BA060C6C7982B8988256C1E0002FE98/$file/0115769.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Qualified immunity may be denied in an Eighth Amendment case solely because there is triable issue of fact as to whether a prison official was deliberately indifferent to an inmate's safety. Was killed by his cellmate James Diesso while they were housed in the CMF Psychiatric Administrative Segregation Unit (PAS). The district court denied the motion because it found that there were triable issues of fact whether each was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm. Arguing that Saucier requires an additional inquiry into whether a reasonable officer would have understood that his decision was impermissible under the Eighth Amendment. Hold that Hamilton was undermined by Saucier. Arnold and Williams were dismissed and no appeal is taken as to them. 1 12436 ESTATE OF FORD v. Courts must still consider whether assuming the facts in the injured party's favor it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful. Arnold and Williams are entitled to qualified immunity. The information available to them did not make it so clear that Diesso would harm Ford that no reasonable officer could have agreed to allow them to be celled together.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1688.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nolen was entitled to absolute qua sijudicial immunity and that Mr. Nolen was entitled to 2 No. 01 1688 qualified immunity. It is the unanimous opinion of the court that Mr. Nolen is not protected by absolute quasi judicial immunity. It is the opinion of the majority of the panel that Mr. A third member of the panel is of the opinion that Mr. Nolen is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Snyder alleged that he was estranged from his wife. That his wife was in sole possession of his non marital property. That he was incarcerated in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. That his assets were at substantial risk because his wife had indicated to Mr. His actions in `whiting out' [the] same was an `impermissible encroachment of judicial authority.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0904n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The claims against the JCF Psychology Department were dismissed by the district court early in the litigation on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. He alleges that he was placed on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948666.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTS Because all issues in this case are so fact specific. Bostick and Rivers Correctional Institution (Rivers) are part of the Middle Georgia Correctional Complex (MGCC). It does have a sick call station. Were employees of CMS assigned to MGCC. The nurse noted that he was wheezing and had labored breathing with shortness of breath. Adams complained to the duty nurse that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1515.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were found guilty of both offenses. Robert Verbickas was found guilty of the substantive deprivation charge. We have consolidated all five cases for disposition on appeal. Eight Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016603.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Veney claims that defendants denied his requests to move from his single occupancy cell into a doubleoccupancy cell because he is a homosexual male. Because we agree with the district court that even if all of Veney's allegations were true. After several requests to switch into a double occupancy cell were denied. Were discriminating against him because he is a homosexual male. White ruled that Veney was not being discriminated against. Veney claims that he is being treated differently from similarly situated heterosexual males and homosexual females. Are housed in double occupancy cells at Riverside. The district court is required to review any
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1568.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kelly</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9009D8A38AEDDA9C882571C30049888E/$file/0415770.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That dismissal on that basis was therefore erroneous. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Arguing that these determinations were erroneous.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-1504.htm">99-1504 -- YOUSEF V. RENO -- 07/02/2001<BR></A><BR>
Yousef was sentenced to life plus 240 years incarceration at a maximum security institution. Yousef was placed into administrative segregation in an isolated soundproof cell. <p> Because of Mr. Both of which were denied. 1997e(a) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/35BE3E7C53B39D1888256B5E005DAC49/$file/0055213.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. He was violently beaten by a prison guard at the Los Angeles County jail and was then refused proper medical attention in violation of his civil rights. Taylor was granted permission to file his civil rights complaint in forma pauperis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-3233.htm">03-3233 -- RIOS V. COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS -- 04/01/2004<BR></A><BR>
Rios was convicted by general court martial of the following offenses: (1) rape of a child under the age of sixteen. He was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment. <p> When Mr. Rios was charged and convicted of four additional offenses. Rios also alleges that (4) prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by denying him outdoor exercise and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0570n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was placed in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-2131.htm">02-2131 -- FLOREZ V. JOHNSON -- 03/28/2003<BR></A><BR>
<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3496D4587B80681E88256BC0007BB5AC/$file/9917338.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A number of the sheriff's deputies who were on duty at the Washoe County jail the night Gibson died. That summary judgment was improperly granted on the question whether the County was deliberately indifferent to Gibson's mental illness while he was in custody at the county jail. Review is de novo. To determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Was in the regular care of a psychiatrist. Gibson was entering a manic phase. He was pacing agitatedly through his home. Gibson where he was going. The psychiatrist on call at West Hills in an effort to find Gibson and have him taken to the hospital. Four dispatches were broadcast over the Reno1 and Washoe County police frequencies: On February 1 at 9:33 PM. A notice was broadcast. The broadcast stated that Gibson was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AED2345DF1145A2D88256D5E007848AC/$file/0135311.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
THOMPSON 9323 committed the offense for which he was incarcerated. The question for decision is whether that determination violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. He was arrested and pleaded guilty to attempted rape. Himes was subject to several
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0182n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The mail was not received by the Michigan Supreme Court until July 12. The following three days were not business days in view of the Independence Day holiday. The mail accordingly was not sent until Tuesday. After the Michigan Supreme Court notified Sims that his appeal was untimely. [mail] will be processed as soon as possible. It is not required to be processed . . . until the next business day. The prison responded that under its policy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1403.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is. Ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Florence is currently a prisoner in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/95-4012.html">TREFF V. GALETKA<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Who was an inmate at a Utah state prison during the time his claims arose. Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when Ms. Sixteen pieces of mail were not processed by the prison mail room and consequently were never delivered to the addressees. The third inquiry was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. The investigation was closed. Would have responded if they had received his letters. Galetka was liable for her actions and those of her subordinates in failing to process his mail. 1571 (10th Cir. 1993) (issues not argued to the district court will not be considered on appeal).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1102.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was serving a prison term in Massachusetts. Was transported to a county jail in New Hampshire under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) to stand trial on charges pending against him in that state.1 He was tried and convicted on those charges in December 1990. Was returned to county jail pending sentencing. Who was superintendent of the county jail. O'Mara explained that Stow was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1630_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wisconsin prison officials for actions taken while he was incarcerated in that state. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is therefore submitted on the briefs and the record. Conyers was punished. His disciplinary conviction later was expunged after a successful administrative appeal. Guards frisked Conyers as he was leaving the prison chapel. Conyers was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing. This time his appeal of the conviction was unsuccessful. The ticket was classified as a major offense because Conyers had previously been convicted of possessing the same type of contraband. A few days later Conyers was sentenced to 90 days in segregation. While Conyers was serving his segregation time. He asked to be provided with late bagged dinners during the Fast of Ramadan but was told that the deadline to sign up for that service had passed. Its timing is based on the lunar calendar and the start date moves backwards by eleven days each year.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-5136.htm">02-5136 -- HOOVER V. KEATING -- 02/07/2003<BR></A><BR>
Each of his appeals was denied by both Warden Mahaffey and Director/Designee Guilfoyle. <p> In connection with these incidents. He reiterated his assertions that the cell assignments constituted a danger to him and suggested that any policy that placed black inmates with white inmates was dangerous. Explained that misconduct citations were not grievable. <p> On June 16. Hoover abandoned the argument that interracial housing assignments posed a danger to his safety and instead claimed that his refusal to change cells was based on a medical condition under which he could occupy lower bunks only.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul13/03-41200.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. For which (he says) the proper treatment is the prescription medication Prevacid. Antacids or Zantac. maintains that the prison staff dispensed Zantac instead of Prevacid solely because Zantac was cheaper. Hasty then was prescribed and began receiving Prevacid in Hasty contends that the failure its generic form. The magistrate judge subsequently determined that Hasty had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and that his suit was frivolous. holdings. While the prison medical professionals may not have prescribed the most After Hasty drafted his complaint but before it was filed. At the time it was filed. Hasty was receiving lansoprazole without difficulty. Hasty concedes that any claims against medical personnel at the Coffield Unit (which were added at the Spears hearing) are unexhausted. Challenging both bases for the judgment and asserting that he should have been permitted to amend his complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/83FF2D9D9EB68CCD88256F660001750B/$file/0315378.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that Keane's death was not the result of Dr. BACKGROUND Keane Toguchi (Keane) was incarcerated for most of the period between 1993 and 1998. He was treated by Dr. Keane was paroled in April of 1998. Keane was placed under the direct care of Dr. Keane was brought to Dr. Chung observed Keane for about fifteen minutes after he was restrained and returned every fifteen minutes thereafter. Was still sleeping at 2:45 p.m. The blood level of sertraline is in the lethal level and the blood level of diphenhydramine is in the toxic level. These blood levels are attained by ingestion of multiple tablets of the medications. It is not known whether the medications were taken with suicidal intentions or accidentally ingested because of the altered mental status of the decedent. Chung alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to Keane's serious medical needs. Marvit concluded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-41200.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. For which (he says) the proper treatment is the prescription medication Prevacid. Antacids or Zantac. maintains that the prison staff dispensed Zantac instead of Prevacid solely because Zantac was cheaper. Hasty then was prescribed and began receiving Prevacid in Hasty contends that the failure its generic form. The magistrate judge subsequently determined that Hasty had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and that his suit was frivolous. holdings. While the prison medical professionals may not have prescribed the most After Hasty drafted his complaint but before it was filed. At the time it was filed. Hasty was receiving lansoprazole without difficulty. Hasty concedes that any claims against medical personnel at the Coffield Unit (which were added at the Spears hearing) are unexhausted. Challenging both bases for the judgment and asserting that he should have been permitted to amend his complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-8666.opa.html">ADAMS V. POAG<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Adams v. We reverse.<p> FACTS<p> <p> Because all issues in this case are so fact specific. Bostick and Rivers Correctional Institution (Rivers) are part of the Middle Georgia Correctional Complex (MGCC). It does have a sick call station. Were employees of CMS assigned to MGCC. The nurse noted that he was wheezing and had labored breathing with shortness of breath. Adams complained to the duty nurse that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-8666.opa.html">ADAMS V. POAG<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Adams v. We reverse.<p> FACTS<p> <p> Because all issues in this case are so fact specific. Bostick and Rivers Correctional Institution (Rivers) are part of the Middle Georgia Correctional Complex (MGCC). It does have a sick call station. Were employees of CMS assigned to MGCC. The nurse noted that he was wheezing and had labored breathing with shortness of breath. Adams complained to the duty nurse that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-1421.htm">00-1421 -- U.S. V. HANEY -- 04/22/2002<BR></A><BR>
Francis was not a member of that prison gang. <p> In 1997. You know what time it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1575.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was an inmate at the New Hampshire State Prison when a disturbance occurred there in October 1987. The MCSU was made up of four housing sections. Cookish was not in his cell but working in the prison kitchen. Pod 1C
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/942964P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. After receiving confidential complaints indicating that Hudson was strong arming inmates at the Reformatory. The identities of persons providing confidential information during the course of this investigation have been deleted from this report in order to preserve the security. A disciplinary hearing was set and Hudson requested witness statements from various staff members. Contending that he was so busy with scheduled activities that he would not have had the time to participate in the alleged wrongdoing. Domer stated that Hudson's work schedule was such that he would have had ample opportunity to commit the alleged offenses. Hudson was found guilty of the charges and was sentenced to 20 days of solitary confinement. The revocation of 90 days of his good time credits.2 Hudson Because this is a habeas case in which Hudson seeks restoration of his good time credits. We have not treated his 2 2 appealed to the warden and the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections. (2) the requested witness testimony was cumulative and would not exonerate Hudson.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031896p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when prison officials sought a state court order authorizing them to force feed him after he went nine days without eating. We will affirm. Allegedly because he was not receiving legal material.3 He made threats. Was placed on further restriction even though he was already in the SMU. Walker claims to have begun a religious fast which he planned to continue for three to fifteen days. Walker was seen at least daily by prison medical staff. Walker was incarcerated in the Special Management Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031896p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when prison officials sought a state court order authorizing them to force feed him after he went nine days without eating. We will affirm. Allegedly because he was not receiving legal material.3 He made threats. Was placed on further restriction even though he was already in the SMU. Walker claims to have begun a religious fast which he planned to continue for three to fifteen days. Walker was seen at least daily by prison medical staff. Walker was incarcerated in the Special Management Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI0NTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2450_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Duamutef was convicted after a jury trial of murder in the second degree. He was sentenced to a term of 15 years to life imprisonment. While Duamutef was serving his sentence. The INS ceased to exist as an independent agency within the Department of Justice and its functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. To be consistent with the District Court order and because the rulings at issue in this case were made 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 serving him with an order to show cause. The INS alleged that Duamutef was deportable pursuant to sections 241(a)(1)(B) and 241(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/962096P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Webb argues the district court erred in (1) holding defendants were not deliberately indifferent to his safety as a matter of law (count I) and (2) dismissing his state negligence claim on the ground of sovereign immunity (count II). There was an independent jurisdictional basis diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 for the state negligence claim.). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the memorandum opinion and order of the district court. After Webb was apprehended. In October 1993 he was transferred to the Lawrence County jail to face the pending South Dakota charges. He was placed in maximum security. At the time Webb was 19 years old. Defendants did not place him in one of two minimum security sections in the jail because they wanted to separate him from his accomplice (the accomplice had been placed in one of two minimum security sections) and because the other minimum security section was full. Another maximum security inmate. 3 Apparently Webb's first cellmate was leaving the jail and Webb did not want to share a cell with incoming federal prisoners.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-8059.htm">99-8059 -- GUNDERSOON V. UPHOFF -- 06/28/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff. Because the legal sufficiency of a complaint is a . When plaintiff was brought to the penitentiary. They were going to cut his hair. Stating that he was an ordained minister in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114273.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robinson was convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Was sentenced to death on the murder conviction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYyMDYtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6206-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Under which good time is calculated proportionately to time served. Hold that the agency's interpretation is * The Honorable Charles L. The BOP's interpretation of the statute is not reasonable. We apply Chevron deference to the BOP's interpretation of § 3624(b) and hold that it is reasonable. 2 claiming that he should have received 121 days of credit toward the completion of his sentence for good behavior. Sash was released on November 22. Commonly referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-1279.htm">02-1279 -- RUTHERFORD V. MEDICAL DEPT. OF DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 09/24/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Kevin Rutherford. The claims were dismissed on several grounds. He was returned to prison to recuperate. His claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs are primarily based on allegations that . 2001 was $115.16. <em>Id.</em> doc. 48 at 2. <p> In August 2001. 2001 was $115.91. <em>Id.</em> doc. 71 at 4. Stating that he had pneumonia and was unable to immediately respond to the court's orders. Although his account statement showed a deficit and he claimed (1) he was indigent. (3) his $3.40 canteen expenditure was for stamps. No records supported his expenditure claim and he therefore had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-6087.man.html">HUBBARD V. HALEY (8/21/2001, NO. 99-6087)<BR></A><BR>
The issue presented in this appeal is whether multiple prisoners. Are entitled to join their claims and thus pro rate the mandatory filing fees among the group instead of individually paying the full fee. We conclude that the intent of Congress in promulgating the PLRA was to deter frivolous civil actions brought by prisoners by requiring each individual prisoner to pay the full amount of the required fee. All of the plaintiffs are dialysis patients and allege that the medical care and diet provided at St. The magistrate judge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-6087.man.html">HUBBARD V. HALEY (8/21/2001, NO. 99-6087)<BR></A><BR>
The issue presented in this appeal is whether multiple prisoners. Are entitled to join their claims and thus pro rate the mandatory filing fees among the group instead of individually paying the full fee. We conclude that the intent of Congress in promulgating the PLRA was to deter frivolous civil actions brought by prisoners by requiring each individual prisoner to pay the full amount of the required fee. All of the plaintiffs are dialysis patients and allege that the medical care and diet provided at St. The magistrate judge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-7109.htm">00-7109 -- LOWE V. SOCKEY -- 04/02/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is. Lowe's allegations are. Lowe was serving a term of imprisonment in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. Lowe's action was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2280.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue we address in this appeal is whether plaintiff Ricky Garcia. Garcia was sentenced to death for the murder of a correctional officer in New Mexico. His death sentence was commuted in 1986. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> New Mexico officials. The district court dismissed sua sponte with prejudice Garcia's claim that he was improperly classified and his claims against defendants in their official capacities. It is waived. Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss contending that California rules and regulations apply to Garcia's classification and that if Garcia were housed in New Mexico. Finding that Garcia is not in administrative segregation. Rather he is in a high security unit due to past violent behavior. His classification in California is no different than it would be in New Mexico.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/98-7207a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jo Anne Robinson. Interim Corporation Counsel at the time appellants' main brief was filed. Interim Corporation Coun sel at the time appellants' reply brief was filed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051088p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stevenson and Manley were awaiting resentencing. Their sentences were vacated and remanded on or about May 30. They were moved off death row. Stevenson was moved from the SHU to a less restrictive pre trial facility in December 2003. Was returned to the SHU in January 2004. They were both subsequently re sentenced to death on February 3. Jones was awaiting trial at the time of the complaint. He and several other inmates were moved to the SHU on or about February 19. He was not afforded an explanation or hearing regarding his transfer into more restrictive housing. State that he was alleged to have been involved in the riot at Gander Hill. Jones was subsequently found guilty of firstdegree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on September 16. Which was granted on December 7. The District Court held that the detainees' transfer out of the general prison population into the SHU for nonpunitive reasons was within the scope of the prison officials' authority with respect to prison management. 2005.2 Review of a dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is plenary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7207a.html">SUNDAY DASKALEA V. DC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jo Anne Robinson. </p> <p>Interim Corporation Counsel at the time appellants' main </p> <p>brief was filed. </p> <p>sel at the time appellants' reply brief was filed. Is precisely how any reasonable </p> <p>person would describe the District's attitude toward its wom </p> <p>en prisoners. We are unable. Plaintiff must look </p> <p>to the District alone for payment of compensation.</p> <p>I</p> <p>This is not the first time the federal courts have reviewed </p> <p>charges of sexual abuse by D.C. correctional officers against </p> <p>female inmates. A class action was filed on behalf of </p> <p>all women prisoners under the care of the District of Colum </p> <p>bia correctional system. That the harassment was obvious and widely </p> <p>known. That the District was therefore liable </p> <p>under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 for the violation of the inmates' </p> <p>constitutional rights. Officers admitted that the </p> <p>policy was never posted. There was no evidence that the </p> <p>training requirements were implemented nor that any signifi </p> <p>cant corrective intervention occurred.</p> <p>Against this background.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5066DA7F996575F88256B720062487D/$file/0110346.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Novak argues that the clock measuring the duration of his escape should have begun to tick when he was officially designated an escapee by the United States Marshals Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051654np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Miller challenges the legality of a 2002 Bureau of Prison (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-4111.man.html">VANDERBERG V. DONALDSON (8/1/2001, NO. 99-4111)<BR></A><BR>
Because his legal materials were confiscated and lost or destroyed. He was denied access to the courts. Plaintiff also alleged that he was subjected to verbal abuse and was threatened with retaliation for filing grievances and for verbally confronting a prison official.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C12EBEAB35F1F458825702D0055DBA4/$file/0336038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DANIELS I The facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute. Our analysis is not contingent on this fact. 1 MUJAHID v. Is that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Mujahid is no longer imprisoned by the named respondent warden.2 Established principles of habeas procedure suggest otherwise. [1] When Mujahid filed his petition. He was incarcerated in Oregon. He named as respondent the warden of the institution where he was imprisoned. It is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-4111.man.html">VANDERBERG V. DONALDSON (8/1/2001, NO. 99-4111)<BR></A><BR>
Because his legal materials were confiscated and lost or destroyed. He was denied access to the courts. Plaintiff also alleged that he was subjected to verbal abuse and was threatened with retaliation for filing grievances and for verbally confronting a prison official.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/053110P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Missouri (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3376.htm">00-3376 -- BRIDGES V. U.S. -- 08/10/2001<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044131np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. Relevant History Because the parties are familiar with this case's history. We will not recount the background at length. Filed a pro se civil rights action regarding events while he was incarcerated at SCI Greene (Waynesburg. Smith alleged that he was denied adequate medical care for his cardiac condition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Smith alleges that he was deprived of his constitutional right of access to the courts. Aside from the principle that this new claim is not properly before this Court on appeal. We note that Smith's responses to the motions for summary judgment and objections to the report and recommendation appear on the docket and were duly filed on August 9. Smith contends that the Magistrate Judge was biased against him for assorted reasons. Smith's argument is based on his belief that the Magistrate Judge's brother has a law practice with defendant Falor's brother. When he had already provided the copies when submitting his complaint in 2001.3 We are unpersuaded by these arguments.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19996087.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue presented in this appeal is whether multiple prisoners. Are entitled to join their claims and thus pro rate the mandatory filing fees among the group instead of individually paying the full fee. We conclude that the intent of Congress in promulgating the PLRA was to deter frivolous civil actions brought by prisoners by requiring each individual prisoner to pay the full amount of the required fee. All of the plaintiffs are dialysis patients and allege that the medical care and diet provided at St. The magistrate judge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19996087.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue presented in this appeal is whether multiple prisoners. Are entitled to join their claims and thus pro rate the mandatory filing fees among the group instead of individually paying the full fee. We conclude that the intent of Congress in promulgating the PLRA was to deter frivolous civil actions brought by prisoners by requiring each individual prisoner to pay the full amount of the required fee. All of the plaintiffs are dialysis patients and allege that the medical 2 care and diet provided at St. The 3 magistrate judge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/053490P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that this regulation is invalid. Fults was sentenced to an eighteen month term of incarceration for concealment of assets in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152. Fults would have become eligible for pre release placement in a CCC on January 6. The Bureau designates inmates to community confinement only as part of pre release custody and programming which will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for re entry into the community. (b) As discussed in this subpart. The term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/003579.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment for defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PADOC). There is plainly no merit to this challenge for there is no evidence that Mazurkiewicz exhibited 2 deliberate indifference to Edward Singletary's medical needs. Rule 15(c)(3) provides for the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/003283P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court refused to dismiss his complaint as the so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1078.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Large & Badger was on brief. Was on brief. Plaintiffs brought suit against the superintendent and the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. 1983.1 The sole question on appeal is whether the district court correctly entered summary judgment on the plaintiffs' damages claim in favor of the superintendent based on his assertion of the qualified immunity defense. We conclude that the constitutionality of prison visitor strip searches is governed by the standard of reasonable suspicion and that a reasonable official in the superintendent's position could have believed. The named plaintiffs in this action are Sharon Wood. The defendants are James R. From the time she was first incarcerated there. She was visited approximately every other week by her son Phillip Thamert (then seventeen years of age). Herring told Baker and Butts that he had obtained information that inmate Sharon Wood was receiving drugs from the outside. Had heard from an anonymous source that Wood was receiving drugs during visits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/95-6094.opa.html">FAWAAD V. JONES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fawaad v. We AFFIRM.<p> The material facts in this case are not disputed and are presented fully by the district court. <i>Fawaad v. It is undisputed that Fawaad's religion requires him to abandon the name Jeffrey Bell and to adopt his new religious name. Who have legally changed their names following incarceration. Is to require inmates to use dual names on all incoming and outgoing mail. Fawaad is required to refer to himself as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956094.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The material facts in this case are not disputed and are presented fully by the district court. It is undisputed that Fawaad's religion requires him to abandon the name Jeffrey Bell and to adopt his new religious name. Who have legally changed their names following incarceration. Is to require inmates to use dual names on all incoming and outgoing mail. Fawaad is required to refer to himself as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-1231.htm">03-1231 -- MCDANIELS V. MCKINNA -- 04/27/2004<BR></A><BR>
He claims that he was denied adequate medical care and an appropriate diet for his diabetes. That he was denied access to the courts. That his First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion were infringed. Since he is a prisoner of the Washington Department of Corrections. He is incorrect. <p> Plaintiff filed this civil case pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/95-6094.opa.html">FAWAAD V. JONES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fawaad v. We AFFIRM.<p> The material facts in this case are not disputed and are presented fully by the district court. <i>Fawaad v. It is undisputed that Fawaad's religion requires him to abandon the name Jeffrey Bell and to adopt his new religious name. Who have legally changed their names following incarceration. Is to require inmates to use dual names on all incoming and outgoing mail. Fawaad is required to refer to himself as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3068.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The warden of the Pendleton Correctional Facility where Piggie is presently confined. The petitions were properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That is supported by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AB93498640C2584888256C9B005B425D/$file/0055702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court based both rulings on the fact that Nonnette was a state prisoner and that his civil rights claims necessarily challenged the validity of the underlying decisions that caused his continued confinement. We conclude that he is correct. Nonnette was found to have stabbed another inmate. Nonnette was assessed 360 days loss of good time credits. Was placed in administrative segregation for 100 days.1 Nonnette filed a complaint in the U.S. That he wrongfully had been denied work credits that would have led to an earlier release. The third cause of action asserted that his due process rights were violated by his disciplinary proceeding and the ensuing loss of good time credits and administrative segregation. Nonnette was required to proceed first in habeas corpus. That term was later suspended. Indicating that those arguments will also apply to the dismissals of the first two claims. That issue was addressed by the more recent decision of Heck v. SMALL [2] The Supreme Court subsequently held that the Heck rule applied to a state prisoner who was seeking damages for unconstitutional deprivation of good time credits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0118n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the reasons that are set forth below. BACKGROUND The details of this case are tragic. Morton was released on personal recognizance and ordered to return to court on April 3. 2003 and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. 2003 he was arrested by Dearborn police. An arrangement was made to transfer him to the custody of the Ann Arbor police. Morton attempted to escape and was caught. Morton tested positive for cocaine and his blood alcohol level was found to be .363. Which is over four times the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle. University medical specialists concluded that hospitalization was unnecessary and that Morton's violent behavior was 2 No. 06 1013 the result of his drug and alcohol use. Morton was released from the University Hospital the same day and taken to his arraignment. Morton once again reacted violently when he was told he would not be released while he awaited his sentencing hearing set for June 12. Was present at this arraignment. He admitted that it is customary for him to have received a copy of the court disposition and that he likely received one in this case as well.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1241.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming he was injured during the incident due to excessive force. Serna's claims against Gasko were premised on his alleged supervision and control of the team that removed Serna from his cell. Arguing that he was not liable for Serna's injuries under a theory of supervisory liability. So summary judgment should have been granted in his favor. Factual Background Serna was a prisoner at the Colorado Territorial Corrections Facility. Claimed it was loaded. One of the inmates allegedly involved with the gun was Serna's cell mate. Gasko was not at the prison. He was in his office in Colorado Springs. He had authority to activate SORT but was not in charge of the officers who would enter the cell units. He was in his cell during the early afternoon when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/97-7232a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were John M. We conclude that he is not entitled to in forma pauperis status in this court. I. Background Appellant Smith is a prisoner of the D.C. Smith alleged that his civil rights were violated under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 when he was not allowed to bring religious and educational materials when transferred from Lorton Correctional Complex to a facility in Ohio. Smith's complaint was accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. A second judge issued an order denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that Smith on at least three previous occasions had brought civil actions that were dismissed as frivolous. The district court cited two cases in which Smith was plaintiff that were dismissed for failure to state a claim on August 29. 1997 (CA No. 97 1987 and CA No. 97 1988) and one which was dismissed for failure to state a claim on October 16. The appeals from the three earlier decisions were dismissed for lack of prosecu tion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-4253.opa.html">GAMBETTA V. PRISON REHAB. INDUS. AND DIVERSIFIED ENTERS., INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gambetta v. In that neither the Supreme Court nor the courts of appeals have addressed the matter comprehensively. That the employer in this matter is a state instrumentality. The result of that inquiry is that we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.<p> I.<p> <p> Chapter 946 of the Florida Statutes mandates that a private. PRIDE simulates a real world business environment: inmates complete employment applications and are interviewed. Named as defendants were DOC. We assume that DOC and its officials are no longer involved in the suit. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/96-4253.opa.html">GAMBETTA V. PRISON REHAB. INDUS. AND DIVERSIFIED ENTERS., INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gambetta v. In that neither the Supreme Court nor the courts of appeals have addressed the matter comprehensively. That the employer in this matter is a state instrumentality. The result of that inquiry is that we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.<p> I.<p> <p> Chapter 946 of the Florida Statutes mandates that a private. PRIDE simulates a real world business environment: inmates complete employment applications and are interviewed. Named as defendants were DOC. We assume that DOC and its officials are no longer involved in the suit. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3215_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Centers for Disease Control (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0239p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to determine the constitutionality of a Michigan statute. Provides no equivalent right of appeal to state prisoners who are denied parole. Is a Michigan prison inmate who contends that the state legislature's 1999 amendment to § 791.234(9) that produced this dichotomy violates his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jackson was convicted of unarmed robbery in Michigan state court in 1989 and was sentenced to a prison term of 4 15 years. Although he was paroled in 1997. He was eventually arrested again. The petitioner's parole was revoked and he was re incarcerated. Concluding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-1185.htm">02-1185 -- GRIFFIN V. SAMU -- 03/17/2003<BR></A><BR>
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of the is appeal. <em>See</em> Fed. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Henry Lee Griffin. Griffin's request to expunge his disciplinary conviction was appropriately styled as a habeas petition and dismissed it for failure to exhaust state remedies. 1983 claims and deny a certificate of appealability (COA) regarding the habeas claim.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052108np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the District Court's judgment. Charles Iseley was convicted of numerous robbery and assault charges. He is currently incarcerated at State Correctional Institution at Fayette. He was diagnosed with Hepatitis C (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3745.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Steven Cavalieri is in a vegetative state after attempting suicide in a holding cell in the Champaign County Correctional Facility (the CCCF). I Although this is an interlocutory appeal. Shepard is entitled to bring it now. Because he is raising the question whether he should have prevailed on his defense of qualified immunity. Because it is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016703R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 9 the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/99-8036.htm">99-8036 -- COSCO V. UPHOFF -- 11/22/1999<BR></A><BR>
Appellants have acquired personal property. They deprived appellants of their property without due process of law. <p> It is clear from the complaint that appellants are not arguing about the ownership of the property but rather the right to keep the hobby and legal materials in their cells. They also include a claim of property interest in income they would have derived from their hobby activities. The methodology relies on a showing that the regulatory language is so mandatory that it creates a right to rely on that language thereby creating an entitlement that could not be withdrawn without due process. <u>See</u> <u>Board of Regents of State Colleges v. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0056p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Government contends that summary judgment was proper because of the discretionary function exception to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Because the discretionary function exception does not apply to the limited question of whether the prison was negligent in not giving Bultema the proper number of forms and oral instructions once he received permission to get a bottom bunk. Because there is a material question of fact regarding Bultema's comparative negligence. Bultema was arrested and charged with bank fraud. As part of his sentence he was imprisoned. Bultema was initially assigned a top bunk within Unit 1 A. The bunk beds at Elkton consist of metal frames with foam type mattresses and have two levels a bottom bunk that is approximately eighteen to twenty four inches off the ground and a top bunk that is considerably higher. The bunks typically have a ladder on one end of the bed or on the side of the bunk. Bultema was given a medical examination by the prison's physician's assistant.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/021874P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She alleges that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to Gacek's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Found that there was a dispute as to the predicate facts surrounding Hauglin's actions during a fifteen to twenty five minute period after Gacek informed Hauglin that he was going to commit suicide. He was entitled to qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction over this appeal of the district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Inmates are continuously confined in their cells except for a period of forty five minutes for recreation period. Inmates are allowed to take a shower. Talk with other inmates who are in their cells. A maximum of two inmates are allowed to be out of their cells during the same rec period. Inmates who are on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-6213.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-6213.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-8854.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-8854.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/00-6108.htm">00-6108 -- CASERTA V. KAISER -- 10/30/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant David Anthony Caserta. Caserta is serving a prison term under an Oklahoma state conviction. In part: <p> A thorough investigation into the riot was completed and officers positively identified each inmate involved in the breaking of glass and televisions. You were one of the inmates identified as a participant in the riot .... <p> Mr. Caserta] was provided with a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. The Disciplinary Hearing Actions form states that the decision was based on Petitioner's having been identified as a participant in the group disturbance. Caserta asserts
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1318.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting four claims for relief: 1) a claim he characterized as an access to the courts claim based on deprivations of his personal property which the district court construed as a due (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> process claim. Montana fails to allege specific facts to support the four claims for relief that he is asserting in the amended complaint. He also fails to allege the specific actual injury he suffered because he fails to identify the nonfrivolous claim or claims that he was prevented from pursuing. Montana also fails to identify in the amended complaint the Defendants against whom he is asserting his deliberate indifference and retaliation claims. How those Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Was identical to the first with the exception that Montana attached copies of his <hr> grievance filings to the second amended complaint. The essence of the order is that Montana failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043120np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2006) OPINION PER CURIAM Jamalud din Almahdi is serving a sentence of imprisonment at FCI Allenwood for a parole violation. His presumptive parole date is March 29. He claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when DHS arbitrarily placed his name on a watch list. When officials at FCI Allenwood placed him in administrative detention at times of elevated national security because his name was on the list. He alleged that he was placed in segregation for over two months in late 2001. His telephone privileges were reduced to once a month. 2 n.2 (noting that they would file another motion to address the merits if the exhaustion defense were unsuccessful). Defendants argued that prisoners have no constitutional right to use a telephone. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm in part and vacate in part. With the District Court's implicit determination that Almahdi was obligated to exhaust his claim insofar as he alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when DHS improperly placed his name on a watch list.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003595P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The body of Philip Edward Hott (Hott) was discovered by a deputy in his cell at the ADC shortly after 5:30 a.m. on January 21. A second broken bed sheet noose was found in the toilet in his cell. Hott was eighteen years old and had been detained in the ADC for approximately forty five days while awaiting trial on charges stemming from a theft. The injuries were treated with Advil and Tylenol throughout his detention. He was thus classified as vulnerable. Hott was housed without a cellmate in the special needs portion of the ADC. Medical personnel at a county hospital had documented that Hott had attempted suicide and was at an increased risk for subsequent attempts. The ADC did not attempt to determine whether any county facility was in possession of any of Hott's medical records. 2 Hott did little to attract attention to himself during his stay at the ADC. Additional criminal charges were filed against Hott. Who was suffering from an ear infection. Deputy Gerhard Rieder was responsible for the special needs section of the ADC that night.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/974082P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Had not alleged any facts to indicate he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Was thus ineligible for IFP status under section 1915(g) (prisoner may not bring civil action or appeal if prisoner has had three prior actions or appeals dismissed for frivolousness.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3174.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that dismissal was required because Mr. Appellate Jurisdiction We have appellate jurisdiction only over the district court's order dismissing Mr. While his motion for reconsideration was (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We do not have jurisdiction over the order denying reconsideration. District court is required to dismiss entire action). The district court should not have dismissed his case. Should have granted him an opportunity to exhaust his (1) The district court also ruled on various other motions. None of which are before us in this appeal. <hr> administrative remedies. (4) prison officials' instructions on how to meet time deadlines were so unclear and confusing as to excuse him from complying with the required time limits. (5) although a prisoner's untimely filing may be excused if the Bureau of Prisons provides a letter stating that the delay was not the prisoner's fault.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055281np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will summarily affirm. We agree that these defendants were properly dismissed. The United States is protected from suit by sovereign immunity. There is no explicit waiver in this case. The John Doe defendants were never identified and served with the complaint. Parker has not offered any reason why he could not have identified and properly served these defendants. Who are physician assistants and prison guards at FCI Schuylkill. There is no evidence that any of them played a role in the incidents underlying 2 1 The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The District Court concluded that prison medical records
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-8005.htm">02-8005 -- WATSON V. STATE OF WYOMING -- 12/15/2003<BR></A><BR>
Watson was charged with the first degree murder of an inmate in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Then I [Watson] have the right to withdraw the plea of guilty and reinstate my prior plea and stand trial on the charge against me.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-4157.htm">02-4157 -- STACK V. MCCOTTER -- 10/24/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Brian K. That McCotter and Bartlett were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court's order granting summary judgment on Stack's second amended complaint was the last in a series of orders that progressively whittled down a much broader complaint about prison conditions. Stack also included claims that we will call his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/01/991272P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was arrested in Faulkner County. Was booked into defendant Faulkner County Detention Facility (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/018020.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Her complaint under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) claiming prison officials have denied her adequate medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. VDOC doctors have consistently diagnosed her as suffering from GID. When De'lonta was transferred to Mecklenburg Correctional Center and her hormone treatment was terminated pursuant to a then recently created VDOC policy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/12/981271P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Paige first asserts the district court should have deemed his petition timely filed under Houston v. A notice of appeal by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the appropriate district court clerk. We have not yet decided whether the prison mailbox rule applies to the filing of a § 2255 motion as well as the filing of a notice of appeal. That decision was vacated and is currently pending before the court en banc. The Court in Houston was concerned that the only way a pro se inmate can file documents with the district court clerk is by using the prison mail system. This concern is not implicated here. He chose to have his brother draft his motion and to wait for that draft's arrival in the mail despite the impending due date. Even if equitable tolling is available in the context of a § 2255 motion. Equitable tolling is proper when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-2937.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Joey Peate is serving a sentence at the Miami Correctional Facility in Bunker Hill. We conclude that this disposition was premature and therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment. 2 I No. 00 2937 Peate was in Miami's recreation yard on the afternoon of July 2. Once McCann was able to calm McIntyre down. What happened next is hotly disputed by the parties. What is clear is that McIntyre regained his laundry bag weapon from McCann. The disagreement is over how he managed to do this. Finally some recalled that McCann handed the bag off to McIntyre as Peate was charging at both McIntyre and McCann. Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect prisoners from this violence. Prisoners are not required to live in a violent state of nature where brutal attacks are ignored. The Supreme Court has recognized that prisoners may obtain relief under the Eighth Amendment for injuries sustained in prison if the injury is objectively serious and the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to the safety and health of the inmate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/981271P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellee. * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri On the court's own motion the attached opinion is substituted for the opinion filed December 23. Depending on whether the enactment date is counted towards the one year limitations period. Paige first asserts the district court should have deemed his petition timely filed under Houston v. A notice of appeal by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the appropriate district court clerk. We have not yet decided whether the prison mailbox rule applies to the filing of a § 2255 motion as well as the filing of a notice of appeal. That decision was vacated and is currently pending before the court en banc. The Court in Houston was concerned that the only way a pro se inmate can file documents with the district court clerk is by using the prison mail system. This concern is not implicated here. He chose to have his brother draft his motion and to wait for that draft's arrival in the mail despite the impending due date.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/023775P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Exhaustion is completed at the time the district court renders its opinion on a motion to dismiss. The substantive nature of the claims asserted by each inmate is not relevant to this appeal except that 1 The Honorable James M. The motions were denied. The complaints filed by Johnson and Fudge are governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-5530a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Paul G. With him on the brief were Howard T. This is the second time that this court has had occasion to hear an appeal in this case. The District Court held that its judgment in the initial proceeding established the law of the case regarding the existence of clearly established law and that this was dispositive of the qualified immunity issue. The issue was settled as to these parties in this case. There was no good reason for the District Court to reexamine its judgment when the case was remanded for further proceedings. Is not fully dispositive of the issues raised by appellants' re newed motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. The District Court must now determine whether there are disputed issues of fact as to whether appellants violated the clearly established law either by intentionally segregating Mr. The judgment of the District Court on the law of the case issue is affirmed. The case is remanded for further proceedings to address the remaining issues on the qualified immunity claim and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/961022P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The record indicates that the package was marked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1504.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arey</SPAN> was on brief. </STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/96-1221.wpd.html">MCINTOSH V. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMM'N<BR></A><BR>
We have previously concluded that 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus and 28 U.S.C. 2255 proceedings. Are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Was on brief. Such commitments are girded by statutory procedural requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. § . Those statutory procedures were Congress's response to <U>Vitek</U> v. <U>Jones</U>. Which have within their geographic territory federal penal institutions. Have reviewed proceedings under § . We vacate the order of commitment.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1641.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Leavitt stated that the remark was. Where he was subsequently housed for 24 days. Leavitt was found guilty on all charges. He was punished with. All of Leavitt's appeals were denied. The grievance was apparently dismissed. The grievance was not fully investigated. Gallant was given a verbal reprimand. He alleged that he was denied due process and equal protection in the prison disciplinary procedure. That his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the loss of good time credits as a result of that procedure. That his First Amendment rights were violated by being disciplined for his unspecified remark at the basketball game. That his due process and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the prison's failure to adequately follow its grievance procedure regarding his grievances. That his due process rights were violated by being brought to administrative segregation without explanation. That his constitutional rights were violated by defamatory statements made about him by defendants Woodbury and Gallant.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/053394P.pdf">P:\DOCS\E-DOS\6-6\05-3394 MUEIR V. GREENE COUNTY OPN 5.31.WPD<BR></A><BR>
Claiming that while he was incarcerated in the Greene County Jail (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-7064a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief was Athan T. Dawson and Smith were prisoners of the District of Columbia in the Lorton Correctional Complex in Virginia. The District's appeal is mainly on the ground that the court misapplied the standards articulat ed in Helling v. None of the three plaintiffs is still jailed at Lorton. Scott completed his sentence and was released more than a year ago. Dawson and Smith are now serving time at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. They were trans ferred to Ohio in September 1997 pursuant to s 11201(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self Government Im provement Act of 1997. A prisoner's transfer or release from a prison moots any claim he might have for equitable relief arising out of the conditions of his confinement in that prison.1 It does 1 See Cameron v. 1363 (11th Cir. 1984). not matter that Smith and Dawson are still being held under the authority of the District of Columbia. Neither he nor the other two plaintiffs are before us asking for damages.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2AD134FAA0863F188256DAD0066AE2B/$file/0015795.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gargaro was on the briefs. 14426 SCHNEIDER v. Were on the briefs. Schneider and the other Plaintiffs Appellants are current and former state inmates of the California penitentiary system. Inmates are not permitted under California law to possess money while in prison. Is administered by Bank of America. He is not required to do so. Notwithstanding that the inmate is not credited with interest earned on his account. There are compelling reasons to establish an ITA. An inmate is required to maintain an ITA with a principal balance of at least $25.00. Only those funds placed into an ITA are available to the inmate for purchases in the prison canteen. My canteen privileges will be lost.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-2152.htm">00-2152 -- CURLEY V. PERRY -- 04/18/2001<BR></A><BR>
We now affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is incarcerated in Utah. The filing fee for pursuing such an action is $250. Without prepayment of fees . . . by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees . . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064417np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The facts are well known to the parties and will not be repeated at length here. Macia learned that the Deputy Marshal was investigating his escape for possible criminal prosecution. Macia was charged with escape for which he pled guilty. Was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment to run consecutively to the sentence he was then serving. Macia complains that his disciplinary transfer to a medium high security facility was vindictive and excessive. Macia failed to show that he was prejudiced. The District Court also held that Macia failed to present any evidence supporting his claim that his waiver of his right to representation was based on the false promise of non prosecution. Provides a right to staff representation at a prison disciplinary hearing only when the inmate is illiterate or the issue to be adjudicated is complex. The District Court held that there was more than some evidence to support the disciplinary hearing officer's finding of guilt based on the undisputed fact that Macia left the institution (FPC Pensacola) on June 9.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/013062.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S 1983 case is before us on interlocutory appeal. The defendants contend that they are entitled to absolute immunity because they acted pursuant to a court order or otherwise in a quasi judicial capacity. They argue that they should receive qualified immunity because they did not violate Hamilton's Eighth Amendment rights or because their actions were objectively reasonable. We agree with the District Court that on this record the defendants are not absolutely immune on the ground that they acted pursuant to a court order. For the District Court to analyze under the legal tests noted below whether the defendants are entitled either to absolute immunity for acting in a quasijudicial capacity or to qualified immunity. 2 FACTS1 On August 5. Hamilton's cellmate in Delaware's Gander Hill prison attacked and injured him.2 Hamilton alleges that his cellmate was able to commit this assault because the defendant prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his safety. Prison officials have transferred him among various prisons both in and outside Delaware and have placed him in protective custody.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/59A1A11EDB73430288256C0C007EB8E1/$file/0116088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) were deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the neighboring inmates who allegedly suffered harmful effects from migrating pepper spray vapors. We have jurisdiction over the officials' interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. The prison officials are shielded from liability. They saw that one of the prisoners had the other in a headlock and was punching him in the face and slamming his head against the wall. The beaten prisoner's face was covered with blood. Other officers were instructed to activate an alarm and to get the pepper spray cannister. Officer Norton claims that the first application was blocked by the bodies of the fighting prisoners. Some of the neighboring inmates claim that the fighting sounds were replaced 11250 CLEMENT v. GOMEZ by sounds of coughing and gagging1 after the initial burst of spray and that there was another 2 5 second application immediately thereafter.2 The fighting prisoners were escorted out of the cell and attended to shortly after the final spray.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1112.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where he was detained pending trial on criminal charges. That the reassignment and failure to protect claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. I. The following facts are alleged in Palay's complaint. Palay is a federal prisoner currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford. Palay was detained at the MCC in Chicago. Where he was awaiting trial on federal charges. The complaint alleges that the transfer was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1773p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that Burns' petition was timely filed under the principles set forth in Houston v. We will summarily reverse the dismissal. Burns was sentenced to 100 years in prison with fifty years of parole ineligibility. In considering whether Burns' petition was timely filed. S 2244(d)(1) if the petition was filed on or before April 23. Under which a pro se prisoner's notice of appeal is considered filed at the time he submits it to prison officials for mailing. The court thus found that Burns' petition was filed after April 23. The appellees assert that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because Burns' notice of appeal was untimely filed. Burns is incarcerated and benefits from Fed. Under which an inmate's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6022.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Phillips Bey contends that he was denied the opportunity for fellowship with other Muslims. He alleges that he was treated differently from other similarly situated inmates who were permitted to exercise their religion. <hr> Regarding his second claim. We must construe his arguments liberally because he is pro se. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961022P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It was labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1142.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The following allegations were contained in that complaint: While McGee was housed at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth. He was subpoenaed to testify in court as a witness for an individual who was a known member of the Aryan Brotherhood (AB). He was allegedly placed in confinement and informed by a prison official that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/054363P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. ERTs are comprised of minimum security inmates from South Dakota's four state penitentiaries. ERTs are dispatched to natural disaster clean up sites. Inmates are required to comply with correctional officers' orders and conduct themselves appropriately. The governor will reduce the sentence of an inmate who works hard on an ERT. Ambrose was an inmate in the custody of the DOC. Major Darin Young (Major Young) was the DOC's ERT commander. Douglas Weber (Warden Weber) was the DOC's supervising warden. The only training Ambrose received was watching a chainsaw safety training video. Tisland was standing on the deck of his house and Officer Ewer was taking a water break with the inmates near the northwest side of Tisland's house. There is no record of the call on the police log. Was hired by the DOC to train and supervise inmates for roofing state buildings. Tisland would perform indoor maintenance work and supervise inmates performing maintenance duties. 32 When the fire was extinguished.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/93-9282.opa.html">WILLIAMS V. FOUNTAIN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Williams v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/93-9282.opa.html">WILLIAMS V. FOUNTAIN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Williams v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951613P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Long is serving a life sentence at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) for the brutal murder of a woman. 253 N.W.2d 549. The defendants were not deliberately indifferent to that need. (3) the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from Long's claim for damages. Long was allowed to wear women's clothes and make up on a regular basis. Board complained to prison officials about Long's attire. officials have denied his request each time. therapy and sex change surgery. Was revoked in 1981 after a member of the Iowa Parole Since 1981 Long ISP repeatedly has sought permission to wear women's clothing and make up. Nor have prison health services employees ordered. Long's 1990 evaluation was unproductive because Long presented himself in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB2A3E609346062A88256F950082DA3B/$file/0330334.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Lawrence Antelope is a convicted sex offender who shows promise of rehabilitation. The terms of his supervised release offer him treatment but at a price he is not willing to pay. Because his claim is ripe for adjudication. Was an undercover law enforcement agent. Antelope pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and was initially sentenced to five years probation. Was told by the district judge that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2048.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Employing the same standards as is required of the district court. A motion for summary judgment must be granted if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055184np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will dismiss it as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pennsylvania state inmates have available to them a three level administrative review process designed to address inmate grievances. As is pertinent here. An initial grievance must be submitted to a Grievance Coordinator within 15 working days after the events upon which the claims are based. It is undisputed that Jetter did not file his initial grievance until November 8. Had occurred.1 It is likewise undisputed that Jetter's initial We note that Jetter has not alleged that he was somehow prevented by prison authorities from timely pursuing the prison grievance process. 112 (3d Cir. 2002) (administrative remedy unavailable where prison security officials told inmate to wait to file grievance until after the investigation was 3 1 grievance was rejected by Grievance Coordinator Diana Baney because it was untimely. We agree with the District Court that Jetter's claims against the prison defendants were procedurally defaulted. The Eighth Amendment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/937129.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Ervin was assaulted by a fellow inmate and sustained serious injuries to his eyes and face. We find that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of all three defendants on Ervin's failure to protect claim and in favor of defendants Mangum and Lilly as to Ervin's claim of failure to provide medical assistance. Defendants are entitled to immunity from these claims because they committed no violation of clearly established constitutional law. That Scott is not entitled to summary judgment based 2 on qualified immunity on the claim of failure to provide medical assistance. We remand this matter to the district court for trial on the sole issue of whether Officer Scott was deliberately indifferent in failing to provide Ervin with adequate medical care. Clyde Ervin was arrested on marijuana charges and brought to the Raleigh County Jail to await transfer to Bluefield. Ervin was assaulted by a fellow inmate. Jordan was a large man. Ervin was released from the Raleigh jail into the custody of a state trooper who transported him to Bluefield for arraignment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/031868P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ortiz was an inmate at the Fort Dodge Correction Facility (FDCF) in Iowa. Ortiz's native language is Spanish. He is also fluent in English. FDCF's policy permitted written communication in a foreign language if that was the only language in which the inmate could communicate. Allowed Ortiz to write letters to his sister in Mexico City in Spanish because it was the only way he could communicate with her. While his grievance was pending. Ortiz was then allowed to correspond in Spanish with all of his family members. Ortiz brought suit against FDCF and Conley seeking compensatory and punitive damages stemming from the First Amendment violation he maintains occurred during the three months that he was unable to write or receive letters in Spanish. Were called during the bench trial. The district court1 determined that FDCF's former policy of monitoring prison mail was reasonably related to a penological interest. The Supreme Court stated that prison regulations pass constitutional muster if they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006129.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 1 the section is corrected to begin:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0182p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This First Amendment retaliation claim relates to a series of events that we have addressed in three prior published decisions. The two issues presented in this appeal are (1) whether the district judge abused his discretion in granting the new trial on damages. We summarized much of the factual background to this case as follows:2 Bell is a former prisoner at the State Prison for Southern Michigan in Jackson. Bell was serving a sentence for armed robbery. He was assigned to administrative segregation during his stay at Jackson because he was diagnosed with AIDS and had engaged in consensual sex with another inmate. Bell was paroled in 1994. Bell was once again assigned to administrative segregation based upon his prior sexual misconduct. Prisoners are housed alone in cells with steel doors. Prisoners in segregation are locked in their cells for twenty three hours each day. Are allowed to spend one hour in the prison yard. Where the inmates are placed in cages to isolate them. Because prisoners in segregation are not allowed to congregate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED3D8E64B695AF1D88256AF7007FBE7A/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BAF0DF04C873FDE88256E5A00707D36/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/9 |
