Printer Friendly

Krug v. Lutz.

U.S. Appeals Court

REGULATIONS

Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, alleging a procedural due process violation in connection with the review of decisions that excluded incoming publications as obscene. The district court found that the officials enjoyed qualified immunity, but granted injunctive relief for the inmate. The district court ordered a review by a different decision-maker when a publication was excluded, if the exclusion was challenged. The officials and inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the inmate had a protected liberty interest in the receipt of his subscription mailings and therefore had a constitutional right to a two-level review of a corrections official's determination that a publication was excludable as obscene. The court noted that a different official from the one who made the initial determination had to review the challenge to the exclusion. (Arizona Department of Corrections)
COPYRIGHT 2003 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:due process of law
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U8AZ
Date:Nov 1, 2003
Words:160
Previous Article:Wall v. Dion.
Next Article:Zimmerman v. Simmons.
Topics:


Related Articles
American Nervousness: 1903, An Anecdotal History.
Paid informers.
Civil liberties, library groups challenge the latest law restricting Web access.
High Court limits punitive damages in an appeal of State Farm decision. (Briefing).
Deep seas, dark worlds: deep-sea vents create cozy homes for some of Earth's weirdest life forms.
Krug v. Lutz.
When arbitration subverts democracy: by blocking access to the courts, mandatory arbitration and separability undermine the rule of law.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters