Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney

915 F.2d 1557, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 17622, 1990 WL 152385
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedSeptember 20, 1990
Docket90-1440
StatusUnpublished

This text of 915 F.2d 1557 (Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, 915 F.2d 1557, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 17622, 1990 WL 152385 (1st Cir. 1990).

Opinion

915 F.2d 1557

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.
INMATES OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
Dennis J. KEARNEY, et al., Defendants, Appellants.
Sheriff of Suffolk County, Defendant, Appellant.
INMATES OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL, Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
Dennis KEARNEY, et al., Defendants, Appellants.
Commissioner of Correction, et al., Defendants, Appellants.

Nos. 90-1440, 90-1569.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Sept. 20, 1990.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Robert E. Keeton, District Judge.

Chester A. Janiak, with whom Burns & Levinson were on brief, for appellant Sheriff of Suffolk County.

Jon Laramore, Assistant Attorney General, with whom James M. Shannon, Attorney General, were on brief, for appellants Commissioner of Correction.

Max D. Stern, with whom Lynn Weissberg and Stern & Shapiro, were on brief, for appellees.

D.Mass., 734 F.Supp. 561.

AFFIRMED.

Before LEVIN H. CAMPBELL and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges, and CAFFREY,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The issue presented for review is whether a consent decree governing the Suffolk County Jail and House of Correction should be modified to allow inmates to be housed two per cell. The district court held that circumstances had not changed sufficiently to justify modification of the consent decree. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, 734 F.Supp. 561 (D.Mass.1990).

We are in agreement with the well-reasoned opinion of the district court and see no reason to elaborate further.

*

Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mocciola (Gerard Peter) v. United States
915 F.2d 1557 (First Circuit, 1990)
Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney
734 F. Supp. 561 (D. Massachusetts, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
915 F.2d 1557, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 17622, 1990 WL 152385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inmates-of-suffolk-county-jail-v-kearney-ca1-1990.