prison hearing in Pennsylvania

2025Confiscation of an inmate’s property “requires only the existence of an adequate post-deprivation remedy because it is not feasible for a prison to provide a hearing prior to taking property that is perceived to be contraband or against prison regulations.” Id. (quoting Shore v. Department of Corrections, 168 A.3d 374, 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)).

2021“When a prison official confiscates a prisoner’s property in an allegedly unauthorized way, whether it be negligently or intentionally, due process requires only the existence of an adequate post- deprivation remedy because it is not feasible for a prison to provide a hearing prior to taking property that is perceived to be contraband or against prison regulations.” Shore v. Department of Corrections, 168 A.3d 374, 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).

2025Shore v. Dep’t of Corr., 168 A.3d 374, 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533-34 (1984)).

2023Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533-34 (1984).

2023“Claims of retaliation fail if the alleged retaliatory conduct violations were issued for the actual violation of a prison rule.” Horan v. Newingham (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2622 C.D. 2015, filed Oct. 24, 2016), slip op. at 9, 2016 WL 6156221 , at *5 (quoting Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2008)).[] “Thus, a defendant may successfully defend a retaliatory discipline claim by showing some evidence the inmate actually committed a rule violation.” Id.

2023“Claims of retaliation fail if the alleged retaliatory conduct violations were issued for the actual violation of a prison rule.” Horan v. Newingham (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2622 C.D. 2015, filed Oct. 24, 2016), slip op. at 9, 2016 WL 6156221 , at *5 (quoting Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2008)).[] “Thus, a defendant may successfully defend a retaliatory discipline claim by showing some evidence the inmate actually committed a rule violation.” Id.

2023See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 , 533-34 . . . (1984); Parratt, 451 U.S. at 541 . . . .

2023See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533-34 [] (1984); Parratt, 451 U.S. at 541 [.] In addressing the issue, the courts have repeatedly held that inmate grievance systems are an adequate post- deprivation remedy, see, e.g., Tillman, 221 F.3d at 422 , and this includes the Department’s tiered grievance procedure[.] Shore v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 168 A.3d 374, 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).

2024See Kittrell, 88 A.3d at 1096 .

2022In Hackett v. Horn, 751 A.2d 272, 275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000), this Court considered a similar issue when determining whether a DOC rule limiting the amount of legal materials that may be kept in a cell to 1 box and 10 law books was challenged on due process grounds.

2022Finally, as for serving a penological interest, Vasquez argues that a prison rule or policy must be “reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest [] and may not represent an exaggerated response to those concerns.” (Id. at 31 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987)) (internal quotations omitted).) Vasquez asserts that “[t]he legal material posed no security threat to the jail,” the restriction “was merely a means toward him learning the legal system and participating with his attorney in his pending criminal case,” and, given that the one-inch rule for legal material was n

2022This final prong is designed to prevent any “‘potential for abuse’ inherent in retaliation claims and also [to promote the] policy of judicial deference to the prison officials’ ‘legitimate interest in effective management of a detention facility.’” Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 353, 357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (quoting Yount, 966 A.2d at 1120-21 ). “‘Claims of retaliation fail if the alleged retaliatory conduct violations were issued for the actual violation of a prison rule.’” Horan v. Newingham (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2622 C.D. 2015, filed Oct. 24, 2016), slip op. at 9 (quoting Hartsfield v. Nichols,

2019See May, 256 F. App’x at 829 .

1983Padgett v. Stein, 406 F. Supp. 287, 298 (M.D.