Gregory A. Scher v. Daniel Engelke

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ten retaliatory searches over nineteen days, three of which “left the cell in disarray,” could be a violation
• holding that 10 retaliatory searches in 19 days, some of which resulted in “violent dishevelment,” could constitute an Eighth Amendment injury
• holding that excessively frequent cell searches conducted without a penological purpose, in retaliation for inmate’s blowing the whistle on a corrupt guard, violate the Eighth Amendment
• holding that the evidence regarding the searches of Scher’s prison cell showed a “pattern of calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs from which the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that prisoners are protected.”
• stating that “evidence of fear, mental anguish, and misery inflicted through frequent retaliatory cell searches, some of which resulted in the violent dishevelment of [the prisoner’s] cell, could suffice as the requisite injury for an eighth amendment claim”
• finding that ten searches in nineteen days was “frequent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).