Murray v. Wright

D.C. Circuit

Murray v. Wright

53 F. App'x 128

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2002

DocketNo. 02-5095

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F. App'x 128 (Murray v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murray v. Wright, 53 F. App'x 128 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. The district court did not err in construing appellant’s challenge to his placement in administrative segregation as a civil action. See Brown v. Plaut, 131 F.3d 163, 168-69 (D.C.Cir.1997) (challenge to administrative segregation placement properly brought as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action). Moreover, the injunction issued in Murray v. District of Columbia, No. 95-cv-0364 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 1995), was not affected by the enactment of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996.

• Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. The district court did not err in construing appellant’s challenge to his placement in administrative segregation as a civil action. See Brown v. Plaut, 131 F.3d 163, 168-69 (D.C.Cir.1997) (challenge to administrative segregation placement properly brought as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action). Moreover, the injunction issued in Murray v. District of Columbia, No. 95-cv-0364 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 1995), was not affected by the enactment of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996.

• Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. App'x 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-wright-cadc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack