42. Services-prisoner.

U.S. Appeals Court COMMISSARY 

Love v. McKune, 33 Fed.Appx. 369 (10th Cir. 2002). Four prison inmates brought a civil rights action challenging their forced participation in a prison incentive level system that tied inmate privileges to participation ha programs and good behavior. The district court dismissed the action and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that forced participation did not violate the inmates' Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP) system assigned inmates to one of four levels. Each level had a corresponding level of privileges, such as television ownership, handicrafts, participation in organizations, use of outside funds, canteen expenditures, incentive pay, and visitation. The system had been previously upheld by the state supreme court, which found that none of the restrictions denied to inmates on lower levels infringed on inmates' property or liberty interests and therefore did not implicate due process protection. The appeals court noted denying an inmate the use of certain electronic equipment does not impose a significant hardship, nor do restrictions on canteen purchases or the types of purchases and personal property allowed. (Lansing Correctional Facility, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court INDIGENT PRISONERS

Moore v. Chavez, 36 Fed.Appx. 169 (6m Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought suits against a state corrections department and correctional officials, alleging that he was improperly denied indigent status after he dropped out of an educational course, and that the defendants denied him employment when he refused to take a qualifying exam. The district court entered judgments generally in favor of the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the denial of indigent status did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, even though the prisoner alleged that as a result of losing his indigent status he could not receive a loan to purchase hygiene items. The court noted that the inmate did not allege that he suffered extreme discomfort or that he was completely denied the basic elements of hygiene. The appeals court held that the prisoner's claim that the defendants discriminated against him because he had to use a wheelchair and could not take tests under pressure, was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Michigan Department of Corrections)