Services-prisoner.

42. Services-Prisoner

U.S. Appeals Court    Floyd v. Ortiz, 300 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2002).
                      An inmate filed a petition to enforce the terms
  COMMISSARY          of a prior settlement agreement and to obtain
                      contempt citations against a state director of
                      corrections. The district court denied the
                      petition and the inmate appealed. The appeals
                      court reversed, finding that the district court
                      abused its discretion by denying the inmate's
                      request for a rehearing. The appeals court noted
                      that the inmate, who benefited from the
                      settlement agreement, could invoke the district
                      court's continuing jurisdiction over the matter
                      even though he was not a party to the original
                      settlement agreement. The settlement addressed
                      procedures for handling income from the inmate
                      canteen program and interest on individual inmate
                      accounts. The inmates alleged that income from
                      the operation of the inmate canteen program was
                      being deposited in the state treasury and not
                      properly accounted for. (Colorado Department of
                      Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court    Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir.
                      2002). A state inmate brought a [section] 1983
  COMMISSARY          action against prison officials, seeking monetary
                      damages and injunctive relief for alleged Eighth
  INDIGENT INMATES    and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The district
                      court dismissed the action as frivolous. The
                      appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that
                      the inmate's claim that prison officials were
                      deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
                      need for adequate portions of food was not
                      actionable under the Eighth Amendment. The court
                      noted that  the record established that the
                      prison was providing the inmate with a
                      nutritionally adequate diet and doctors disagreed
                      as to whether the inmate should receive double
                      food portions. The appeals court found no equal
                      protection violation, as alleged by the inmate,
                      because inmates with funds were able to
                      supplement their diet with purchases from the
                      prison commissary, while indigent inmates were
                      not. (Oklahoma State Penitentiary)