finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that states a prisoner *617 “ ‘may receive any book.. . which does not present a threat to the order or security of the institution’ ” (quoting Administrative Rule 791.6603)
How later courts described this case
- finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that states a prisoner *617 “ ‘may receive any book.. . which does not present a threat to the order or security of the institution’ ” (quoting Administrative Rule 791.6603)
- finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that states a prisoner "`may receive any book ... which does not present a threat to the order or security of the institution'" (quoting Administrative Rule 791.6603)
- finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that states a prisoner " ‘may receive any book ... which does not present a threat to the order or. security of the institution’ ”
- finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that allows a prisoner to "receive any book ... which does not present a threat to the order or security of the institution"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Janet Virgili v. Michelle Gilbert, John Morrison, and Joseph Masi, 272 F.3d 391 (2001)
Compare Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 511 (6th Cir.1985) (denying, in a pre-Elder case, qualified immunity to officials who violated “the very rule that creates a protected interest and defines the criteria that must be fulfilled before the interest may be defeated”), abrogated on other grounds by Virgili v. Gilbert, 272 F.3d 391 (6th Cir.2001), and Carlo v. City of Chino, 105 F.3d 493, 496-97, 501-02 (9th Cir.1…
Abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)
v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 843-44 (6th Cir.1988) (“The relevant state action in the instant case is the state agency’s deliberate decision to obtain either the voluntary surrender of Watts’ DEA authorization or the summary suspension of Watts’ license, which was done under established state procedure; the focus is not on the possibly random actions taken in carrying out the state procedures.”); Spruytte v. Walters, 7…
The opinion
WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
In my opinion, the district judge abused his discretion in his sua sponte dismissal of Spruytte’s in forma pauperis complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without allowing service of the complaint on the defendants and permitting Spruytte to amend his complaint or respond to the court’s notice of intent to dismiss. I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for trial.
I would prefer this treatment of the case rather than to resort to the lengthy opinion of my learned and industrious colleague which contains many facts which are not part of the record, most of which are undoubtedly true.