Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/rli_plsny/plsny.org/wp-content/plugins/plsny-configuration/plsny-configuration.php on line 194
Pro Se Newsletter
Skip to content

Pro Se Newsletter Vol. 22, No. 2

Table of Contents

  1. Court Denies DOCCS Officials Qualified Immunity for Imposing PRS
  2. Amendments to Parole Law Strengthen Focus on Rehabilitation
  3. HO’s Failure to Produce Exculpatory Evidence Leads to Reversal
  4. Court Finds That Secretly Observing Officers Through a Peephole Constitutes Stalking
  5. Court of Appeals Fails to Modify Standard for Considering Confidential Information
  6. Failure to Ascertain Reason That Witnesses Refused to Testify Leads to New Hearing
  7. Watch Commander May Serve as Tier III Hearing Officer If Not Otherwise Involved in the Incident at Issue
  8. Tier III Hearing Officer Must Have Information Establishing Reliability of Hearsay Informants
  9. Improper to Deny Doctor as Tier III Witness When Nurse Administrator Not Familiar With Inmate’s Condition of Medication
  10. Court Rules Defendant Had Not Reached His Maximum Expiration Date for Purposes of Resentencing
  11. Court of Appeals Defines 2009 DLRA 10 Year Look Back Period
  12. Court Orders Parole Board to Hold New Hearing in Light of 2011 Change to Parole Procedures
  13. Parole Board Rule Allowing One Member to Set Parole Visitor’s Time Assessment Conflicts With Executive Law, Violates Due Process
  14. Letters to Parole Board About Impact of Crime Justified Recission of Parole
  15. Third Department Upholds Force-Feeding Order for Inmate on Hunger Strike
  16. SCOTUS Holds That In-Prison Interrogation Is Not Custodial Per Se
  17. Retaliation Claim Does Not Survive Summary Judgment, Even Though Actions Taken Against Inmate Closely Followed Filing of Grievances