At 242: "... [T]he cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment does not prohibit prison officials from restricting an inmate's diet as a punitive measure, as long as the inmate receives nutritionally adequate food that does not present an imminent health risk."
There is no liberty interest in avoiding placement in a shielded cell. Even if there were, the plaintiff received the process due, i.e., a Wolff hearing. Failure to call a witness did not deny due process in the absence of evidence that the witness would have had an impact on the hearing officer's findings. The plaintiff also received a rehearing that cured defects in the earlier hearing. The court distinguishes Walker and Mays on the ground that administrative reversal, expungement and rehearing, resulting in a significant reduction of the sanction, cured procedural defects resulting from the initial hearing. See: Breazil v. Bartlett, 998 F.Supp. 236 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
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
Breazil v. Bartlett
|Cite||998 F.Supp. 236 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)|