Owens v. Sebelius.U.S. District Court HYGIENE ITEMS Owens v. Sebelius, 357 F.Supp.2d 1281 (D.Kan. 2005). A state prison inmate who had been returned to custody after violating his parole sued officials, challenging a deduction from his prison trust account for fees incurred for supervision while he was on parole. The prisoner alleged that the deductions caused him "undue hardships" and "denied the opportunity to maintain his sanitary hygienic hy·gien·ic adj. 1. Of or relating to hygiene. 2. Tending to promote or preserve health. 3. Sanitary. needs" because he was unable to purchase hygiene items. The district court dismissed the case. The court found that the deduction did not constitute the infliction in·flic·tion n. 1. The act or process of imposing or meting out something unpleasant. 2. Something, such as punishment, that is inflicted. Noun 1. of cruel and unusual punishment Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. , was not an impermissible im·per·mis·si·ble adj. Not permitted; not permissible: impermissible behavior. im ex post facto law “Ex post facto” redirects here. For the episode of , see Ex Post Facto (Voyager episode). An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retrospective law, , and did not violate the inmate's equal protection or due process rights. According to the court, the $25 per month fee was a reasonable reimbursement for the costs of supervision, such as electronic monitoring equipment, drug screening, and surveillance services. The court noted that the inmate did not allege that he was denied free basic hygiene supplies. (Winfield Correctional Facility, Kansas). |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion