Printer Friendly

Royal v. Durison.

U.S. District Court



Royal v. Durison, 319 F.Supp.2d 534 (E.D.Pa. 2004). A state inmate filed a [section] 1983 action alleging he was detained in excess of the statutorily prescribed maximum for the crimes for which he was convicted, and that prison officials failed to consider his request for adjustment of his precommitment time. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the director of classification for a city prison system was not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's claim, that the clerk responsible for keeping records used to determine precommitment time had no authority to calculate the inmate's sentence, and officials had meaningfully and expeditiously considered the inmate's claim. The court noted that the director investigated the circumstances around the inmate's multiple arrests after he was notified of a possible miscalculation, and notified the inmate in two separate correspondences that he was unable to change the period of the sentence by crediting time served. (Philadelphia Prison System, Pennsylvania)
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.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:RELEASE
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U2PA
Date:Aug 1, 2004
Previous Article:Moore v. Vega.
Next Article:Ephraim v. Angelone.

Related Articles
Book Review With respect to women.
Royal on right track with Station Plaza.
Rice won't admit 9/11-style attacks were predictable.
Royal treatment as UPS inks deals.
Zvi Hecker: military police complex, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Royal v. Durison.
The Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management mobile education and training team visits the Netherlands.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters