Monday, August 06, 2012

unpublished decisions

U.S. v. Nelson, 2012 WL 2581039 (7/5/12) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The 10th indicates a defendant who was sentenced for a pre-Act crack offense after the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act as though the old mandatory minimum applied may be able to get relief pursuant to § 2255 under Dorsey. The 10th remands for reconsideration by the d. ct. in light of Dorsey.

U.S. v. Wright, 2012 WL 2402635 (6/27/12) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - The defendant could not satisfy the third, substantial rights affected, prong of the plain error test where at the revocation hearing only the defense attorney admitted the defendant had violated supervised release conditions. The defendant himself never admitted any violations. The defendant did not show that on remand the government couldn't put on enough evidence to prove its case.

Heidtke v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2012 WL 2370072 (6/25/12) (Col.) (unpub'd) - Prison doctors were not deliberately indifferent when they failed to refer the plaintiff to an orthopedic surgeon for 7 1/2 weeks even though the condition of his wrist [broken while playing that dangerous game of softball] kept getting worse. Because of the neglect, the plaintiff ended up with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ("CRPS"). No relief because the malunion of the wrist and the onset of CRPS were not so obvious that even a layperson would recognize the conditions. The mistreatment of the plaintiff's condition was so bad, Judge Briscoe dissented.

Stallings v. Werholtz, 2012 WL 2626942 (7/6/12) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - Confinement in a 70-square-foot cell for at least 23 hours a day and being limited to family visits through video-conferencing are not extreme enough conditions to trigger due process protection. And the monthly reviews of placement under those conditions were not a sham, even though the many times the reasons given for keeping the prisoner in administrative segregation were the same each time, relating to the reasons for the initial placement.

Mitchell v. Medina, 2012 WL 2628076 (7/6/12) (Col.) (unpub'd) - The prison mailbox rule did not apply to render the petitioner's § 2254 petition timely, even though the petitioner signed the petition and certified service on a date within the time limit. He did not submit with the petition the requisite notarized statement of when and how he mailed the petition


Post a Comment

<< Home