Boyd v. Anderson.U.S. District Court DUE PROCESS PROPERTY INTEREST Boyd v. Anderson, 265 F.Supp.2d 952 (N.D.Ind. 2003). Prisoners filed a complaint in state court, alleging that state corrections officials had violated vi·o·late tr.v. vi·o·lat·ed, vi·o·lat·ing, vi·o·lates 1. To break or disregard (a law or promise, for example). 2. To assault (a person) sexually. 3. their federally-protected rights while they were confined con·fine v. con·fined, con·fin·ing, con·fines v.tr. 1. To keep within bounds; restrict: Please confine your remarks to the issues at hand. See Synonyms at limit. in a state prison. The case was removed to federal court, where some of the claims were dismissed. The court held that prisoners do not have a due process protected liberty interest or property interest in a particular prison job assignment. The court held that there was no Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment, addition to the U.S. Constitution, adopted 1868. The amendment comprises five sections. Section 1 Section 1 of the amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens and citizens equal protection claim stemming from the placement of some prisoners, but not all prisoners, back into their original housing and work assignments after their disciplinary charges were reduced. (Indiana State Prison The Indiana State Prison is located in Michigan City, Indiana about 50 miles east of Chicago.[1] It is a maximum security prison for adult males; however, minimum security housing also exists on the confines. ) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion