Champs v. Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• denying qualified immunity to prison officials for holding an inmate in SHU confinement for 10 days without a hearing in violation of New York's seven-day rule
• \The Helms 'reasonable time' standard admittedly does not fix a precise time period within which state officials must act.\
• \[D]efendants could not have reasonably believed that releasing Russell on his tenth day of confinement without providing any notice or opportunity to be heard complied with the requirements of federal due process.\
• qualified immunity defense unavailable where prisoner was administratively confined under “keeplock” to his cell for a period of 10 days without receiving notice of the charges against him, or notice of a hearing
• where no evidence offered to justify delay, confinement, of prisoner for 10 days without holding a hearing did not satisfy “reasonable time” standard and constituted a denial of prisoner’s due process rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).