No. 18-6223

Martin Jonassen v. United States, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-10-04
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 8th-amendment administrative-procedure cell-conditions civil-rights constitutional-rights cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process facility-design habeas-corpus inmate-safety prison-conditions prison-overcrowding standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2018-11-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the 5th Circuit erred in affirming the District Court's dismissal without a hearing and denial of petitioner's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : Ladi the sth Ga, err by ‘Rating Chat the (Os Distick Ct. Order, | w ve . x ates a el Dismis Usithout Boy Forthes Notice Ab. Oid the th Cias And the Disbriet Gout Evy by Deny Ing Movants (Sonassens)\ Ln\onctive / Medak RelreF Repeated Requests i wi itrot / Before toldina ANY Evidem tary Hearing, At all? | \ Lefora oF Felted Neg Before Denying Tn junchive HE vs US 734 Fad 600,607 (hci. 2013) \ use ak Discretion occurted iN Vesey na La\nahive nS Ree withost Hold ing oO Hearing.” . . . Montoginn N Hobbes dOy] Fr Kansas ST Sy] SW: 3d. oil , , (3~]b2017) Qvestions 2A next Page a T of M / 2oF23 , a MORE . 1.CIs the Marlion peison listed as a U.S.P, high mediun.. ; : 2. Prisoners, do some have severly high point forl custody dare. ‘ 3. Does P.S. 1060.11 7(2){a) state if leas than 75 squasle feet "shall" be rated Single cell occupaccy only. Lo. oe 4. Does B.S. 1060.11 5(2) state a cell is olginally designed to fit the number! of People and is suposed to be used as such. : : 5. Ade the cells less then 120 square feet: in size. ; : 6. Does P.S, 1060.11 7(a) State that cell size does not include a closet. _ 7. Locke's are par'menantly fixed and used to store cloths is this not cortlect. : : 8. Lecker's are considerted as closets and ave not included in over! all space is fio ; this corzect. / i 9. Arle there three inmates in most of the leas than 120 squade foot cells. oo : : . 10. Werle the units designed only to house avound 60 prisoneds. il. By design with added two. bunks do the units X,L,¥,N yold up to 180 pitisoners and add up to 480 extra prlisonedls to the compound. ce 12. Officer night checks can they cleadly view prisoner on top bunk. ; oe . . £3. Officer night checks, .can they cleatly view prlisoner| on middle bunk, meaning me, . : actual body paxit, not a daise in the covers. an Ce teee ce vere Cee 14. Does the middle bunk have.a larder\. | 15. Does the middle bunk have a large conedete shelf about 12°X12" sticking out . oven middle bunk. . : 16. Is the middle bunk and lower bunk 25% on more under another’ bunk less than : 17. Does the middle bunk have a 3" piece of Angle Iron stick out frlom the bottom. ; 18. Does the oved crowding of celts assist in spreading dieases. oO , 19. Was the ventalation systems increased to inclule extma prlisoneds. : | : 20. Did Wartien tke ori a Warden get permission to lower the safety and seculity — ; of the cells by getting approval from Regional before installing a blue : cuitain as in place of the cell door being open ot) closed perl policy and is © still listed in the inmate hand book page 7. . 21. The hallways are 13' and 10' in some arleas with a single 3' gate fori all 1200 pluss prtisoneris to travel. Werle they expanded to house the extra 480 oe perisons. If not is this not a high-safety issue. — _ 22. Is the commissary always out of food fori sale, as it has been fori the past an thrlee weeks, and was it expanded to accomadate the extsla prisoners, 23. Have the programs, library, chow hall beet expanded to house the extra puisonerls, if so then why is the leathers program shut down, access to the : law librianly is closed, full and seating in chow hall is ove capacity allowed pext numberl of seats in the chow hall at this time. a 24. Does a blue cutttain less than chest high prevent unwanting exposure. TT oF /ea 4 Fs

Docket Entries

2018-12-03
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2018-11-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.
2018-10-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2018-06-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2018)

Attorneys

Martin Jonassen
Martin Jonassen — Petitioner
United States, et al.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent