×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Fed Prisoner's Five Years in Segregation During Murder Investigation Not Unconstitutional
Fed Prisoner's Five Years in Segregation During Murder Investigation Not
Unconstitutional
Mark Jordan, a federal prisoner, was housed in a segregation unit for five
years while his involvement in a prison murder was investigated. Prison
officials testified that he had a right to showers, out-of-cell exercise,
phone calls, and library privileges, but he refused to exercise those
rights. He was seen weekly by a committee which reviewed his segregation
status. He alleged otherwise in a civil action filed in federal district
court, which dismissed the case on summary judgment, and he appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that
Jordan's pleadings didn't controvert the guard's testimony that he wasn't
deprived of customary privileges for segregated prisoners; thus, the
conditions of his confinement were not unconstitutional. The Court found
that Jordan's segregation for five years, though disturbing, was justified
because he was being investigated for murder. Finally, the Court found that
he was held in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 541.22, which required his case
to be reviewed weekly, because he had received weekly reviews, and in any
event the guards would be entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, the
District Court was affirmed. See: Jordan v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 191
Fed.Appx. 639 (10th Cir. 2006).
Unconstitutional
Mark Jordan, a federal prisoner, was housed in a segregation unit for five
years while his involvement in a prison murder was investigated. Prison
officials testified that he had a right to showers, out-of-cell exercise,
phone calls, and library privileges, but he refused to exercise those
rights. He was seen weekly by a committee which reviewed his segregation
status. He alleged otherwise in a civil action filed in federal district
court, which dismissed the case on summary judgment, and he appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that
Jordan's pleadings didn't controvert the guard's testimony that he wasn't
deprived of customary privileges for segregated prisoners; thus, the
conditions of his confinement were not unconstitutional. The Court found
that Jordan's segregation for five years, though disturbing, was justified
because he was being investigated for murder. Finally, the Court found that
he was held in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 541.22, which required his case
to be reviewed weekly, because he had received weekly reviews, and in any
event the guards would be entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, the
District Court was affirmed. See: Jordan v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 191
Fed.Appx. 639 (10th Cir. 2006).
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
Related legal case
Jordan v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 191 Fed.Appx. 639 (10th Cir. 2006) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |