Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/07] Wilson v. Rees
District court's dismissal, as untimely, of an inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit challenging Kentucky's lethal injection protocol under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is affirmed as Bowling v. Ky. Dept. of Corrections, 301 S.W.3d 478, (Ky. 2009), and its aftermath do not disrupt the district court's holding that defendant's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.

[09/07] US v. Parks
Defendant's sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin is affirmed where defendant's prior Missouri conviction for escape from confinement was a crime of violence.

[09/07] Rice v Rivera
District court's denial of defendant's request for habeas relief from his conviction for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c), is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas motion because defendant cannot now establish that section 2255 is ineffective or inadequate to test the legality of his section 924(c) conviction; 2) the government and the defendant have each forfeited any right to contend that Rule 48 could not be used in this context; and 3) district court's denial of the motion to vacate is reversed and remanded for it to be granted as the district court could not deny the motion to vacate simply because it disagreed with defendant and the government on the merits of the Bailey v. US, 516 U.S. 137 (1997) issue, for a Rule 48 motion that is not motivated by bad faith is not clearly contrary to manifest public interest, and it must be granted.

[09/07] Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger
In a class action against California officials with responsibility over the corrections system and parole proceedings, seeking accommodations to plaintiffs' disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution, the district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion to require defendants to track and accommodate the needs of class members housed in county jails and to ensure a workable grievance procedure for such class members is affirmed in part where: 1) defendants were responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and parolees they housed in county jails; and 2) the district court made the findings required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) regarding the necessity for relief and the narrowness and lack of intrusiveness of the relief order. However, the order is vacated in part where injunctions, whether controlled by the PLRA or otherwise, required evidence of rights violations commensurate with the scope of the relief being ordered.

More...