Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,651,959 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Taylor v. Sebelius.


U.S. District Court

PAROLE -- DUE PROCESS

Taylor v. Sebelius, 350 F.Supp.2d 888 (D.Kan. 2004). A state prison inmate brought a civil rights action against state officials, alleging that a state regulation imposing a $25 monthly supervision fee on parolees was unlawful and violated his rights under the ex post facto ex post facto adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increases the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U. S.  clause and the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials. The court held that the deduction of parole supervision fees from the inmate's account was not 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.  and the regulation did not violate the ex post facto clause. The inmate claimed that he was unable to purchase basic hygiene items for a short time because of the fees. The court found that the state legislature A state legislature may refer to a legislative branch or body of a political subdivision in a federal system.

The following legislatures exist in the following political subdivisions:
 did not intend the fee to be punitive and the fee was not so extreme as to constitute punishment. According to according to
prep.
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.

2. In keeping with: according to instructions.

3.
 the court, collection of the fee was reasonably related to legitimate penological pe·nol·o·gy also poe·nol·o·gy  
n.
The study, theory, and practice of prison management and criminal rehabilitation.



[Latin poena, penalty (from Greek
 interests. The court held that due process did not entitle the prison inmate to a hearing before the money was taken from his inmate account. (Winfield Correctional Facility, Kansas)
COPYRIGHT 2005 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, 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:inmate alleges state of unlawful fees on parolees
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U4KS
Date:May 1, 2005
Words:193
Previous Article:Coleman v. Dretke.(due process of law)(Brief Article)
Next Article:Arline v. City of Jacksonville.(suspect alleged that the city's police of violating 4th Amendment rights )(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
Civil rights.
Religion.
Smith v. Muccino.(prisoner cell assignment)(Brief Article)
Smith v. Muccino.(CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT)(violation of constitutional rights)(Brief Article)
Cooper v. Sedgwick County, Kansas.(PERSONNEL)(Brief Article)
Taylor v. Sebelius.(prisoner claims violation of civil rights under ex post facto clause)(Brief Article)
Owens v. Sebelius.(HYGIENE-PRISONER PERSONAL)(Brief Article)
Owens v. Sebelius.(deductions from prison trust account)(Brief Article)
Williams v. Wisconsin.(parole)(Brief Article)
Williams v. Wisconsin.(parole)(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles