Armstrong v. Whitten

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that placement in disciplinary segregation does not implicate a liberty interest because it “falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence”
• holding that placement in disciplinary segregation does not implicate a liberty interest because it “falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence”
• holding that placement in disciplinary segregation does not implicate a liberty interest because it “falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence”
• concluding that a denial of out-of-cell exercise for 21 days did not rise to Eighth amendment violation
• holding that denial of outdoor exercise for 21 days with no medical effects did not amount to a substantial deprivation under the Eighth Amendment
• holding that placements in disciplinary segregation do not 6 violate the Eighth Amendment unless the allegations “show serious deprivation and deliberate 7 indifference”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).