U.S. Appeals Court FILING FEES PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act
Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.2002). An inmate filed a motion asking the federal court to compel a correction department to deduct no more than 20% of his monthly income to pay for filing fees incurred as the result of unsuccessful actions in federal court. The district court denied the motion and the appeals court affirmed. The department had been deducting 60 percent to pay for three filing fees on which the inmate owed money; the appeals court held that the twenty-percent-of-income payments provided for under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) must be calculated "per case" rather than "per prisoner." (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit)
U.S. Appeals Court RETALIATION FOR LEGAL ACTION
Burke v. North Dakota Corrections and Rehabilit., 294 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action alleging that a corrections department and its medical service contractor denied him treatment for his hepatitis C. The district court dismissed the case. The appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the inmate's allegation that the correctional facility's medical director prevented him from being seen by doctors because of the inmate's prior lawsuit against the director, alleged more than a disagreement over the proper course of treatment, and the case should not have been dismissed. (North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Medcenter One)
U.S. Appeals Court RETALIATION FOR LEGAL ACTION JAILHOUSE LAWYERS
Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152 (3rd Cir. 2002). A state prison inmate brought a pro se [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging he was unlawfully subjected to cell searches and disciplinary proceedings in retaliation for his jailhouse lawyering, in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the disciplinary action taken by prison officials was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, precluding the retaliation claim. The disciplinary action was taken in response to findings that the inmate had engaged in overt misconduct, including unauthorized use of a credit card, theft by deception, receiving stolen property, writing letters to inmates at other prisons, and storing paperwork in his cell in amounts that exceeded...
