Zenanko v. LaFleur

Eighth Circuit

Zenanko v. LaFleur

228 F.3d 933, 2000 WL 1459779

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 15, 2000

DocketNo. 99-1528

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 F.3d 933 (Zenanko v. LaFleur) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zenanko v. LaFleur, 228 F.3d 933, 2000 WL 1459779 (8th Cir. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Scott Peter Zenanko, a Minnesota prisoner, appeals from .the final judgment entered in the District Court¹ for the District of Minnesota granting summary judgment to appellees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Zenanko claimed appel-lees — all prison officials — violated his right of access to the courts by enforcing an allowable-property policy and a property-exchange policy. For reversal, he argues the district court erred in (1) granting summary judgment to appellees because the policies were not based on legitimate penological interests or were exaggerated responses to legitimate interests, and (2) denying his motion for appointment of counsel. He also moves to strike a portion of appellees’ brief, claiming it raises new issues. We deny this motion.

After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that summary judgment was proper: assuming without deciding that Zenanko showed the requisite “actual injury” from enforcement of each policy, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), we conclude both policies were reasonably related to the legitimate peno-logical interests of safety and security, see Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir.1996); Nachtigall v. Class, 48 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (8th Cir.1995). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

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

PER CURIAM.

Scott Peter Zenanko, a Minnesota prisoner, appeals from .the final judgment entered in the District Court¹ for the District of Minnesota granting summary judgment to appellees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Zenanko claimed appel-lees — all prison officials — violated his right of access to the courts by enforcing an allowable-property policy and a property-exchange policy. For reversal, he argues the district court erred in (1) granting summary judgment to appellees because the policies were not based on legitimate penological interests or were exaggerated responses to legitimate interests, and (2) denying his motion for appointment of counsel. He also moves to strike a portion of appellees’ brief, claiming it raises new issues. We deny this motion.

After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that summary judgment was proper: assuming without deciding that Zenanko showed the requisite “actual injury” from enforcement of each policy, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), we conclude both policies were reasonably related to the legitimate peno-logical interests of safety and security, see Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir.1996); Nachtigall v. Class, 48 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (8th Cir.1995). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 F.3d 933, 2000 WL 1459779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zenanko-v-lafleur-ca8-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack