Disciplinary Tort Cases

Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was

In your grievance filed at Buckley Unit, you claim you requested an Inmate Wells 187589 be added to your Do Not House With list and COIII Jones refused your request. Your resolution is to have your disciplinary ticket removed from your record and transfer you to Rast Unit.

In your grievance filed at Red Rock, you claim staff confiscated photos from your incoming mail. You further assert, Department Order 914 does not prohibit photos of the female anatomy from a medical perspective. Your resolution is to receive and possess the photos.

The Court has issued a Show Cause giving the Department 21 days to respond to complaints raised in correspondence from James E. Houck, # 421-024. He raises several complaints; however, the Court’s Order directs that the Department presently only address Mr. Houck’s claim that “he is in danger from known enemies and an inmate was placed in his cell by a correctional guard to kill him.” The Court has directed that the response include declarations and verified records. See p. 4 of Order.

In your grievance filed at Central Unit, you claim COIII Forman refused to provide you staff assistance to help you gather evidence for your pending disciplinary hearing. You are requesting that COIII Forman receive sanctions and retraining on being a Disciplinary Coordinator.

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Warden's response is affirmed. Time Computation staff at Central Office has audited your file and determined that you were denied parole/home arrest on 10/31/2016. You are eligible to be reheard in 12 months. You have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate your claim that timeframes were not adhered to.

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Deputy Bureau Administrator's response is affirmed. Pursuant to DEPARTMENT ORDER 903 INMATE WORK ACTIVITES

In your grievance filed at Cook Unit, you claim the changes to Department Order 914 are vague and ambiguous, thus violating your Constitutional Rights. You further assert the changes are difficult to comply with. Your resolution is to reverse the changes made to the policy.

While at GPM, I attended a session of Treatment Accountability Court (“TAC”) (formerly Mental Health Court) and DUI/Drug Court. Both Courts operate similarly. Several hours before the court session, members of the legal community meet to discuss the progress of each participate scheduled to appear that day. Legal representatives include members from the Sheriff’s Office, Solicitor General’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, the judge who presides over the proceeding, a Program Coordinator & Counselor, a misdemeanor probation officer, and a felony probation officer. The group discusses the status of each participate and whether they’re meeting the conditions set forth by the court. The programs are conducted in phases,

In your grievance filed at Lumley Unit, you claim that you previously refused to participate in the GED program because you had already obtained your high school diploma. You further assert that your refusal subjected you to loss of Phase and pay rate. Your resolution is for DO 903 to be revised and allow inmates to receive a pay increase after a previous program refusal.

In your grievance filed at Central Unit, you claim you were told by Ms. Newman that you would be moved to CB1 if you complied with the program at Kasson Unit and achieved step two. You are requesting to be moved to CB1 immediately.

In your grievance filed at Central Unit, you claim ADC is denying you access to the courts by refusing to provide you with case law. Your resolution is to be provided with case law.

Inmate Al-Wahabi, in your grievance you state that you have been in a restriction pod for almost a week now and you are requesting to be moved immediately. You state that you were seen by the Hearing Sgt., and no restriction or disciplinary time was given to you. Your resolution is for to be moved back to a working pod.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.

Can you elect to recover your damages from the resort only, even though Tex and Rex were primarily responsible for your injuries?