Charles M. Keenan v. Frank Hall, Director Oregon Department of Corrections
Charles M. KEENAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank HALL, Director Oregon Department of Corrections, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REJECTING EN BANC REQUEST ORDER The opinion, Slip op. 5571, filed May 8, 1996 [ 83 F.3d 1083 ] is amended as follows: add a footnote to “major difference between the conditions for the general prison population and the segregated population” in line 2 on page 5578 [ 83 F.3d at 1089 ] of the Slip op.: “The Court expressed it thusly: ‘Based on a comparison between inmates inside and outside disciplinary segregation, the State’s actions in placing [Sandin] there for 30 days did not work a major disruption in his environment.’
Sandin at 486,115 S.Ct. at 2301.”
With this change, Judges Schroeder and Fletcher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en bane. Judge Rymer voted to grant the petition for rehearing and to accept the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).
Ihe petition tor rehearing is demed anc the suggestion for rehearing en banc is re jected.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 79 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that the Eighth Amendment requires inmates to be housed in an environment that 27 is reasonably free from excess noise)
-
(holding that there is no constitutional right to canteen items)
-
(holding that mail from a court is not legal mail)
-
(stating that “verbal harassment generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment” and 19 “[s]ummary judgment dismissing [Plaintiff’s] verbal harassment claim was proper”)
-
(finding that disrespectful and assaultive comments 3 by prison guard were not enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment)
-
(holding that dismissal of verbal 20 harassment claim was proper where plaintiff had not shown that the prison guards’ “disrespectful 21 and assaultive comments” were “unusually gross even for a prison setting and were calculated to 22 and did cause him psychological damage”)
-
(declining to decide “whether mail clearly sent from a lawyer to an inmate but lacking the ‘Legal Mail’ designation may be opened outside the presence of the inmate”)
-
(providing inmates with “water 23 that is foul would be inadequate to maintain health” and therefore violate the Eighth 24 Amendment)
Cited by 376 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- (PC) Puckett v. Rojas
- Brian C. Kerzetski v. Jeremy Bean
- John Angel Salcida v. J. Lewis, Wong, Amaya, Cota, Garcia and Gomez
- Aulton Daniel Goben, III v. County of Kent
- Devin E. Shaffer v. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office
- Ryan Christopher Mickey v. Sergeant Williams, Correctional Officer Corona, Correctional Officer Velasquez and Does 1-10
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.