Boyd v. Anderson.

PositionPrisoners allegs violation of federally-protected rights

U.S. District Court

DUE PROCESS

CONDITIONS

EXERCISE

RECREATION

ACCESS TO COURTS

WORK

Boyd v. Anderson, 265 F.Supp.2d 952 (N.D.Ind. 2003). Prisoners filed a complaint in state court, alleging that state corrections officials had violated their federally-protected rights while they were confined in a state prison. The case was removed to federal court, where some of the claims were dismissed. The court held that placing a convicted felon in pre-hearing segregation without notice or other process does not violate the Due Process Clause. The court held that the prisoners' allegations that cells were very small and that they were denied out of cell recreation stated an Eighth Amendment claim. The court held that prisoners do not have a due process protected liberty interest or property interest in a particular prison job assignment. The court held that there was no Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim stemming from the placement of some prisoners, but not all prisoners, back into their original housing and work assignments after their disciplinary charges were reduced. The court found that the prisoners stated an Eighth Amendment claim with their allegations that their cells were filthy and that they suffered from a total lack of sanitation and personal hygiene. The court noted that the Eight Amendment deliberate indifference standard...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT