Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,508,224 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

U.S. district court: prisoner on prisoner assault; Ashford v. District of Columbia.


Ashford v. District of Columbia District of Columbia, federal district (2000 pop. 572,059, a 5.7% decrease in population since the 1990 census), 69 sq mi (179 sq km), on the east bank of the Potomac River, coextensive with the city of Washington, D.C. (the capital of the United States). , 306 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2004). A prisoner brought a civil rights action against the District of Columbia and its employees, alleging they were liable to him for injuries resulting from an attack by other inmates. The district court held that the prisoner stated a sufficient causal causal /cau·sal/ (kaw´z'l) pertaining to, involving, or indicating a cause.

causal

relating to or emanating from cause.
 connection between his injuries and the District's alleged policy or custom of transferring inmates without informing the receiving institutions about active separation orders. The court also found that the prisoner stated a claim under [section] 1983 against the District's Interstate Compacts A voluntary arrangement between two or more states that is designed to solve their common problems and that becomes part of the laws of each state.

Interstate compacts in the United States were first used by the American colonies to settle boundary disputes.
 administrator. The court noted that the prisoner told prison officials at the receiving facility about the separation orders, but that an official separation order would have received more consideration and attention. (Pleasant Valley State Prison Pleasant Valley State Prison, or PVSP, is a minimum/medium security state prison in California, USA. Located in Coalinga, Fresno County, it opened in November 1994. , California)
COPYRIGHT 2004 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, 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:Failure to Protect
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:May 1, 2004
Words:132
Previous Article:13. Ex-offenders.
Next Article:U.S. appeals court: prisoner on prisoner assault.(Failure to Protect)
Topics:



Related Articles
U.S. district court: separation transfer.(Classification & Separation)
Hewes v. Magnusson.(prisoner rights violated)(Brief Article)
Hewes v. Magnusson.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(case regarding prisoner abuse)
Evicci v. Baker.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(case regarding lack of medical care)(Brief Article)
Boyce v. Moore.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Pagels v. Morrison.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Thompson v. Eason.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(violation of civil rights)(Brief Article)
Johnson v. Johnson.(CIVIL RIGHTS)(Eighth Amendment and equal protection rights)(Brief Article)
Johnson v. Johnson.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(Brief Article)
Failure to protect.

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