Sivak v. Ada County

Idaho Court of Appeals

Sivak v. Ada County

769 P.2d 1131, 115 Idaho 759, 1989 Ida. App. LEXIS 41

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 1989

DocketNo. 17588

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 769 P.2d 1131 (Sivak v. Ada County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sivak v. Ada County, 769 P.2d 1131, 115 Idaho 759, 1989 Ida. App. LEXIS 41 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lacey Sivak, a prison inmate formerly confined in the Ada County jail, appeals a district court decision upholding a magistrate’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition alleged that, during his confinement in the Ada County jail, Sivak had been inadequately fed because his weight decreased by two or three pounds during a one-month period. Because no evidentiary hearing was conducted, we will accept this factual allegation as true. Mahaffey v. State, 87 Idaho 228, 392 P.2d 279 (1964).

Judicial relief from lawful confinement is available when the conditions of confinement result in cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Here, we agree with the magistrate’s implicit determination that Sivak failed to allege a dietary deprivation sufficiently serious to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment is not implicated by every inmate complaint about the conditions of confinement. The courts are not super-administrators of the prison system. Wilson v. State, 113 Idaho 563, 746 P.2d 1022 (Ct.App.1987).

The district court upheld the magistrate’s judgment upon a theory of mootness, which need not be explored here. It is sufficient for us to hold, as we do, that the Eighth Amendment predicate for judi[760]*760cial relief was not established in Sivak’s petition.

The order upholding the judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lacey Sivak, a prison inmate formerly confined in the Ada County jail, appeals a district court decision upholding a magistrate’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition alleged that, during his confinement in the Ada County jail, Sivak had been inadequately fed because his weight decreased by two or three pounds during a one-month period. Because no evidentiary hearing was conducted, we will accept this factual allegation as true. Mahaffey v. State, 87 Idaho 228, 392 P.2d 279 (1964).

Judicial relief from lawful confinement is available when the conditions of confinement result in cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Here, we agree with the magistrate’s implicit determination that Sivak failed to allege a dietary deprivation sufficiently serious to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment is not implicated by every inmate complaint about the conditions of confinement. The courts are not super-administrators of the prison system. Wilson v. State, 113 Idaho 563, 746 P.2d 1022 (Ct.App.1987).

The district court upheld the magistrate’s judgment upon a theory of mootness, which need not be explored here. It is sufficient for us to hold, as we do, that the Eighth Amendment predicate for judi[760]*760cial relief was not established in Sivak’s petition.

The order upholding the judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 P.2d 1131, 115 Idaho 759, 1989 Ida. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sivak-v-ada-county-idahoctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack