Starbuck v. Cistola

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that pat- down searches are an inconvenience that are “insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim”
• holding that “loss of certain privileges while in segregation [is] insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim”
• concluding that a prisoner’s confinement in segregation for 69 days pending an investigation of disciplinary charges did not violate his procedural due process rights
• concluding that a prisoner’s confinement in segregation for four days pending an investigation of disciplinary charges did not violate his procedural due process rights
• holding that “frequent lockdowns, . . . restricted access to certain amenities, . . . and loss of certain privileges while in segregation” do not support an eighth amendment claim
• providing that allegations of “frequent lockdowns . . . are insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).