21. Grievance procedures, prisoner.

U.S. Appeals Court DUE PROCESS

Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2002). A prisoner appealed the district court's dismissal of his [section] 1983 action against prison officials. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that allegations that the prisoner had been placed "in the hole" for religious fasting were sufficient to state a free exercise of religion claim under [section] 1983. The court found that the sore feet from which the prisoner suffered did not amount to a serious medical need. The court also held that the prisoner had no right to a particular prison job. The court upheld the dismissal of the prisoner's complaint concerning the handling of his grievances because the prisoner only alleged that officials had denied his grievances, not prohibited him from filing any grievances. The court also held that regulation of the prisoner's access to his attorney did not violate the First Amendment or [section] 1983 because the prisoner did not show how being denied access to his attorney had impeded his access to the courts. (Iowa)

U.S. District Court RETALIATION

Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A prisoner who was allegedly transferred and reclassified as a "special offender" in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, brought a pro se action for violation of the Privacy Act. The district court dismissed the case and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding...