21. Grievance procedures, prisoner.U.S. Appeals Court DUE PROCESS Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2002). A prisoner appealed the district court's dismissal of his [section] 1983 action against prison officials. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that allegations that the prisoner had been placed "in the hole" for religious fasting were sufficient to state a free exercise of religion claim under [section] 1983. The court found that the sore feet from which the prisoner suffered did not amount to a serious medical need. The court also held that the prisoner had no right to a particular prison job. The court upheld the dismissal of the prisoner's complaint concerning the handling of his grievances because the prisoner only alleged that officials had denied his grievances, not prohibited him from filing any grievances. The court also held that regulation of the prisoner's access to his attorney did not violate the First Amendment or [section] 1983 because the prisoner did not show how being denied access to his attorney had impeded his access to the courts. (Iowa) U.S. District Court RETALIATION RETALIATION. The act by which a nation or individual treats another in the same manner that the latter has treated them. For example, if a nation should lay a very heavy tariff on American goods, the United States would be justified in return in laying heavy duties on the manufactures and Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A prisoner who was allegedly transferred and reclassified as a "special offender" in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, brought a pro se action for violation of the Privacy Act. The district court dismissed the case and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the prisoner adequately alleged the first three elements of a Privacy Act claim for damages: inaccurate records, agency intent, and proximate proximate /prox·i·mate/ (prok´si-mit) immediate or nearest. prox·i·mate adj. Closely related in space, time, or order; very near; proximal. proximate immediate; nearest. causation causation Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect). According to David Hume, when we say of two types of object or event that “X causes Y” (e.g. . The inmate INMATE. One who dwells in a part of another's house, the latter dwelling, at the same time, in the said house. Kitch. 45, b; Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 85; 1 B. & Cr. 578; 8 E. C. L. R. 153; 2 Dowl. & Ry. 743; 8 B. & Cr. 71; 15 E. C. L. R. 154; 2 Man. & Ry. 227; 9 B. & Cr. alleged that he was transferred in retaliation for filing grievances. (Federal Correctional Institutions Noun 1. correctional institution - a penal institution maintained by the government detention camp, detention home, detention house, house of detention - an institution where juvenile offenders can be held temporarily (usually under the supervision of a juvenile in Allenwood, Pennsylvania, and Marianna, Florida Marianna is a city in Jackson County, Florida, United States. The population was 6,230 at the 2000 census. As of 2004, the population recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau is 6,200 [1]. ) U.S. Appeals Court RETALIATION Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner one in confinement, or under arrest, for a political offense. See also: State brought a [section] 1983 action against a former state governor and other officials. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the claim that the defendants conspired against him and other prisoners to keep them in prison beyond their mandatory release dates was properly asserted under the federal habeas corpus habeas corpus (hā`bēəs kôr`pəs) [Lat.,=you should have the body], writ directed by a judge to some person who is detaining another, commanding him to bring the body of the person in his custody at a specified time to a statute, but that the prisoner sufficiently stated a [section] 1983 claim with his allegations that the defendants retaliated against him for using the prison law library by refusing to let him exercise outside of his cell. (Wisconsin) |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion