Keith Harbin-Bey v. Lyle Rutter

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to be placed in a specific security classification
• holding that “an increase in security classification . . . does not constitute an atypical and significant hardship”
• holding that a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to be placed in a specific security classification
• stating that “a prisoner has no constitutional right to remain incarcerated in a particular prison or to beheld in a specific security classification”
• finding that “a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to be placed in a specific security classification”
• stating that “conclusory allegations of retaliatory motive unsupported by material facts will not be sufficient to state a . . . claim” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).