Printer Friendly

Property-prisoner personal.

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

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)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Geographic Code:1U8CO
Date:Nov 1, 2002
Previous Article:Programs-prisoner.
Next Article:Release.

Related Articles
Property-prisoner personal.
Property- prisoner personal.
35. Property-prisoner personal.
Matheny v. Morrison.
Tarpley v. Allen County, Indiana.
Bigbee v. U.S.
Wolff v. Hood.
Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice.
Jacklovich v. Simmons.
Hatfield v. Scott.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters