affirming injunction against prison officials from refusing to mail communications by inmate to any court, public official or agency, or lawyer with respect *79 to inmate’s conviction or any complaint concerning “administration of prison” where incarcerated
How later courts described this case
- affirming injunction against prison officials from refusing to mail communications by inmate to any court, public official or agency, or lawyer with respect *79 to inmate’s conviction or any complaint concerning “administration of prison” where incarcerated
- finding diets of 2,800 to 3,300 5 calories per day constitutionally adequate
- upholding finding of liability for sending inmate to segregated housing in retaliation, in part, for inmate’s past litigation against prison officials and inmate’s threat to sue over censorship of his correspondence
- noting that availability of exercise is an important consideration in determining whether conditions of segregated confinement violate the Eighth Amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Ronald Davidson v. Charles J. Scully, Superintendent, and Edward Bollinger, Correction Officer, 114 F.3d 12 (1997)
See, e.g., Green v. Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765, 770-71 (5th Cir.1986) (finding two meals a day sufficient if nutritionally and calorically adequate); see also Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 186, 193-94 (2d Cir.1971) (finding diets of 2,800 to 3,300 calories per day constitutionally adequate), overruled on other grounds in Davidson v. Scully, 114 F.3d 12 (2d Cir.1997); Cunningham v. Jones, 667 F.2d 565, 566 (6th Cir.198…
Abrogated on other grounds by Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)
442 F.2d 178, 189 (2d Cir.1971) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), and
The opinion
LUMBARD, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in Judge Kaufman’s thorough opinion’exeept as to Section VI regarding Procedural Due Process. While I agree in reversing those provisions of paragraph 2-of the order of the district court, I see no need to express any opinion on what the New York State authorities should do when determining whether or not to withhold or withdraw good time credit, or the general principles which should govern such situations.