Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Coleman v. Brown [2] [3] (Previously Coleman v. Wilson) (), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
The case was consolidated with Coleman v. Schwarzenegger and assigned to a three-judge court on July 26, 2007, to hear motions for relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. An order to reduce the prison population was entered on January 12, 2010, which California claims is unconstitutional in its appeal before the Supreme Court.
Proponents of the California measure predicted it would not have significantly impacted the availability of prison labor. Jobs provide incarcerated people with a chance to get out of their cells ...
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, docket no. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The state is closing a major portion of the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, officials announced Tuesday. As part of a string of reductions statewide, the lower-security West Facility ...
In social choice, a tyranny-of-the-majority scenario can be formally defined as a situation where the candidate or decision preferred by a majority is greatly inferior (hence "tyranny") to the socially optimal candidate or decision according to some measure of excellence such as total utilitarianism or the egalitarian rule.
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.