McClary v. Kelly

Second Circuit

McClary v. Kelly

237 F.3d 185, 2001 WL 28016

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 2001

DocketNo. 00-143

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 237 F.3d 185 (McClary v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McClary v. Kelly, 237 F.3d 185, 2001 WL 28016 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, a prisoner in the New York State prison system serving a felony sentence, was held for an extensive period in administrative segregation in three different institutions. On a jury verdict finding that the prison system gave no periodic review (that was not found to be a sham) of his administrative segregation status, plaintiff was awarded damages. Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 477 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), instructs that “[pjrison officials must engage in some sort of periodic review of the confinement of ... inmates [in administrative segregation].” Defendants contend that the jury’s finding should be set aside and a new trial ordered because there were deficiencies in the conduct of the trial, including improper charges on certain questions to the jury. While some of defendants’ arguments are not insubstantial, they were not clearly or properly brought to the trial judge’s attention.

As plaintiff acknowledges, this case depends on its own particular facts. We find no grounds for reversal. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, a prisoner in the New York State prison system serving a felony sentence, was held for an extensive period in administrative segregation in three different institutions. On a jury verdict finding that the prison system gave no periodic review (that was not found to be a sham) of his administrative segregation status, plaintiff was awarded damages. Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 477 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), instructs that “[pjrison officials must engage in some sort of periodic review of the confinement of ... inmates [in administrative segregation].” Defendants contend that the jury’s finding should be set aside and a new trial ordered because there were deficiencies in the conduct of the trial, including improper charges on certain questions to the jury. While some of defendants’ arguments are not insubstantial, they were not clearly or properly brought to the trial judge’s attention.

As plaintiff acknowledges, this case depends on its own particular facts. We find no grounds for reversal. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F.3d 185, 2001 WL 28016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclary-v-kelly-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack