35. Property-Prisoner Personal
U.S. Appeals Court Floyd v. Ortiz, 300 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2002).
An inmate filed a petition to enforce the terms
INMATE FUNDS 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 Searcy v. Simmons, 299 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir.
2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action
DISPOSITION OF against prison officials, challenging reduction
PROPERTY of his privileges following his refusal to
participate in a sexual abuse treatment program.
The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendants and the appeals court
affirmed. The appeals court held that the adverse
consequences faced by the inmate for refusing to
make admissions required for participation in the
treatment program were not so severe as to amount
to compelled self-incrimination. The court noted
that the prisoner's loss of privileges and the
opportunity to earn future good time credits was
not punishment for his refusal to make the
admissions, but rather were consequences of his
inability to complete the program. The appeals
court also held that the state's act of sending
the inmate's property to his relatives without
his consent did not violate the inmate's due
process rights, although the inmate claimed that
his relatives were not likely to return his
property. The inmate had refused to indicate
where his property should go before the state
decided to send it to his relatives. The court
noted that there is a difference between the
right to own property, and the right to possess
property while in prison. (Hutchinson
Correctional Facility, Kansas)