Lumumba Incumaa v. Bryan Stirling

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an inmate who spent twenty years in solitary confinement had a due process liberty interest in avoiding solitary confinement
• holding that prison’s single-layered system of review for solitary confinement inmates that provided non-substantive rationales for decisions and no appeals process could reasonably violate due process.
• holding that administrative segregation from the general population does not implicate a protected liberty interest absent a showing of specific facts that conditions of confinement are significantly more onerous
• noting that the general prison population is the “touchstone” in cases where inmate was sentenced to confinement in the general population and later transferred to security detention
• holding that a triable dispute existed as to whether the defendants had provided the plaintiff with a sufficient level of process, since the record was “bereft of any evidence” that the plaintiff “ever received meaningful review”
• holding that assignment to a Supermax placed an atypical burden on plaintiffs so as to create a liberty interest when (1) the confinement restrictions were extreme and synonymous with complete isolation (2) the restrictions were indefinite and (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).