CA1: jail disputes

Skinner v. Cunningham, No. 05-1046, affirms the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on a 1983 claim against prison official for denial of due process (by being moved to a high security section) and “that he had been subject to cruel and unusual punishment by abusive treatment during three forcible "cell extractions" and by other acts of harassment.”  The court holds that due process, in these cases, can be had after the fact.  However, the court requires that there be some analysis of the basis for the post-deprivation hearing, so, in this case, the court holds that “We think it is enough here that Skinner's segregation was rational, that its duration was not excessive, and that the central condition--isolation from other prisoners--was essential to its purpose.”  As to the 8th amendment argument, the First looks at a number of videos, the First concludes that there was no evidence that the guards went to far, and the affidavits that they gouged his face were insufficient.   (But, it is worth nothing that he got, and lost, a jury trial on another claim.)