×
You've used up your 3 free articles for this month. Subscribe today.
High Court to Decide if Convict Group is "Person" for IFP Status
Loaded on Aug. 15, 1992
published in Prison Legal News
August, 1992, page 5
High Court To Decide If Convict Group Is "Person" For IFP Status A prisoners' association, elected by the general prison population, filed a federal civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison authorities, alleging violations of the eighth and fourteenth amendment rights of prisoners based on a Department …
Full article and associated cases available to subscribers.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
More from this issue:
- Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission Update, by John Perotti
- Washington Lifers Litigation Update, by John Midgley
- 1991 Prison Population Up 6.2%
- Blacks Likely to Spend More Time In Jail
- Interstate Compact Does Not Create Liberty Interest
- High AIDS Rate Behind Bars
- Study Finds Sentencing Bias in Washington State
- Prison Chief Gains Right to Counter-Sue Cons for Riot Damage
- Guards Need Not Disclose Identity Of HIV-Positive Cons
- Supreme Court Defines "Frivolous" Lawsuits
- Three Strikes, You're Out, by Ed Mead
- ABA Says Use of Prisons Not Effective Way to Fight Crime
- NCCHC Asks Congress to Improve Prison Health Care
- Infracting Cop Cannot Hear Own Infraction
- High Court to Decide if Convict Group is "Person" for IFP Status
- Supreme Court To Define "Prevailing Party" for Purposes of Attorney Fees
- Criticism of Peru Articles
- Federal Prisoner Must Exhaust BOP Remedies Before Seeking Habeas Corpus Relief
- Prison Costs More than Harvard, by Ralph Hakim Walker
- Adverse Change in Board Rules is Ex Post Facto
- Detroit's Former Chief Guilty of Embezzling
- Washington's DOC Boss Talks That Talk. Can He Walk That Walk?
- Virginia Sets Guidelines for Terminally-Ill Prisoners
- Lompoc Prison Strike
- From The Editor, by Paul Wright
- Court Bans Double Celling
- Censoring Mail From Courts Violates Due Process
- DOC Must Provide Involuntarily Committed With Treatment
- Rectal Search Upheld
- Wisconsin Lockdown, by Adrian Lomax
- Indiana Control Unit Prisoners File Suit and Strike, by Paul Wright
- Transfer Violates Access Rights
- Prisoner Entitled to Protection and Toilet Access
- Court Rules on Service and Venue
More from these topics:
- Oregon Supreme Court: Jail Credit Statute Focuses Upon Legal Custody Not Physical Custody Location, July 1, 2026. Civil Procedure, Sentencing, Appeals/Appellate Jurisdiction, Criminal Justice, Statutory Construction/Interpretation.
- Fourth Circuit Chides Virginia Magistrate for Assuming Prisoners Proceed IFP, Aug. 15, 2024. Filing Fees, Indigent Defendants - Fees and Expenses, In Forma Pauperis.
- Nevada Federal Court Says Prisoner’s § 1983 Suit Should’ve Been a Habeas Petition, But Returns Filing Fee, Feb. 1, 2023. Filing Fees, 42 U.S. Code § 1983, civil action for deprivation of rights, Amendments to Petition.
- Smoking on the Chain Gang, May 1, 2021. Chain Gangs, Smoking.
- Mississippi Department of Corrections Lifts Smoking Ban at its Prisons, March 1, 2021. Guard Misconduct, Smoking.
- Dismissal Not Authorized for Oregon Victim’s Refusal to Comply With Subpoena, Oct. 4, 2020. Civil Procedure, Subpoenas, Fair Trial.
- Missouri County Votes to Eliminate Jail Fees, Wiping Out $3.4 Million in Debt for Former Prisoners, Jan. 9, 2020. Filing Fees, Bond Fees, Booking Fees.
- Ohio Mayor’s Courts Are Huge Sources of Unjust Revenues, June 17, 2019. Misconduct/Corruption, Prosecutor/Attorney General Misconduct, Filing Fees, Bond Fees, Booking Fees.
- Colorado: $190,000 Settlement for Prisoners Ordered Released but Kept in Jail for Inability to Pay $55 Fee, April 2, 2019. Settlements, Filing Fees, Booking Fees.
- In Landmark Civil Asset Forfeiture Case, U.S. Supreme Court Holds Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment Applicable to States, March 15, 2019. Filing Fees, Forfeiture, Bond Fees, Booking Fees.