Section 1983 Plaintiff Gets Partial Relief, Remand on Two Issues
Trujillo v. Williams, --- F.3d ----, 2006 WL 2949135 (October 17, 2006)
Jesse Trujillo, a former habeas client of the office, was transferred under the interstate corrections compact (ICC) from NMSP to a Virginia state prison in 2002. He remained in administrative segregation for over two years, constantly administratively challenging the process, of lack of it, by which he was deemed a danger, before pro se filing a Sec. 1983 action in NM federal court against Virginia and New Mexico prison officials claiming equal protection, due process, Eighth Amendment, and access to the court violations. (The 10th’s opinion, by Ebel, throughout is peppered with references to liberally construing a pro se pleading).
1. The 10th agreed with the district court that it had no in personam jurisdiction over the Virginia defendants, but reversed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice as an abuse of discretion and remanded so that the district court could order that the action against the Virginia defendants be transferred to the proper Virginia district court. 28 USC Sec. 1631, and 10th Cir. precedent construing it, require transfer rather than dismissal, when in the interest of justice, to cure the lack of jurisdiction.
2. The 10th affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice the monetary damages action (P asked for $100/day for every day held without process) against NM defendants in their official capacity, as barred by sovereign immunity (and nothing in the ICC waived SI).
3. The 10th reversed the district court’s dismissal of the 14th Amendment due process claim against NM officials in their individual capacities regarding his classification into segregation, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. It noted that while generally there is no constitutional right to a particular classification, when the P alleges that his confinement and classification are atypical and significant when compared to conditions imposed on other prisoners, he has stated a claim. The 10th upheld dismissal of Plaintiff's eighth amendment claim.
4. The 10th reversed district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s access to courts claim, stating that the district court misconstrued the Plaintiff’s claim (a kind way to put it). Rather, Plaintiff alleged that when requesting legal materials, “he is expected to know exactly what he needs without any knowledge of what materials might be available to him. This second allegation-an ‘exact cite’ system-may state a viable claim of denial of access to the courts.” Plaintiff also identified an actual alleged injury as a result.
5. Remand allowed for Plaintiff to amend his Equal Protection challenge.
Jesse Trujillo, a former habeas client of the office, was transferred under the interstate corrections compact (ICC) from NMSP to a Virginia state prison in 2002. He remained in administrative segregation for over two years, constantly administratively challenging the process, of lack of it, by which he was deemed a danger, before pro se filing a Sec. 1983 action in NM federal court against Virginia and New Mexico prison officials claiming equal protection, due process, Eighth Amendment, and access to the court violations. (The 10th’s opinion, by Ebel, throughout is peppered with references to liberally construing a pro se pleading).
1. The 10th agreed with the district court that it had no in personam jurisdiction over the Virginia defendants, but reversed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice as an abuse of discretion and remanded so that the district court could order that the action against the Virginia defendants be transferred to the proper Virginia district court. 28 USC Sec. 1631, and 10th Cir. precedent construing it, require transfer rather than dismissal, when in the interest of justice, to cure the lack of jurisdiction.
2. The 10th affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice the monetary damages action (P asked for $100/day for every day held without process) against NM defendants in their official capacity, as barred by sovereign immunity (and nothing in the ICC waived SI).
3. The 10th reversed the district court’s dismissal of the 14th Amendment due process claim against NM officials in their individual capacities regarding his classification into segregation, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. It noted that while generally there is no constitutional right to a particular classification, when the P alleges that his confinement and classification are atypical and significant when compared to conditions imposed on other prisoners, he has stated a claim. The 10th upheld dismissal of Plaintiff's eighth amendment claim.
4. The 10th reversed district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s access to courts claim, stating that the district court misconstrued the Plaintiff’s claim (a kind way to put it). Rather, Plaintiff alleged that when requesting legal materials, “he is expected to know exactly what he needs without any knowledge of what materials might be available to him. This second allegation-an ‘exact cite’ system-may state a viable claim of denial of access to the courts.” Plaintiff also identified an actual alleged injury as a result.
5. Remand allowed for Plaintiff to amend his Equal Protection challenge.
posted by Anonymous at 10:17 AM
<< Home