No. 18-8255

David E. Ponder v. Avalon Correctional Services, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-03-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: circuit-court-split civil-procedure civil-rights civil-rights-violations constitutional-protections due-process foia-exemption freedom-of-information inmate-rights prison prison-transparency private-prisons standing takings
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2019-05-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Private for-profit prisons-are-allowed-to-deny-FOIA-and-State-Open-Records laws

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Private for profit prisons are allowed to deny Foia and State Open Records laws. (a.) State Courts rulings as to Open Records reqirements involving private prisons and halfway houses are currently the law only in Texas and Tennessee. ‘Reference Prison Legal News v CCA in Texas and Tennesee. . 2. Citizens currently have little to no means of recourse against for profit private prisons engaged in civil and criminal violations and abuses of State and Federal inmates. . 3. The appeals court cites that 1 sought damages for injuries regarding the defendant's failure to contact EMS in a timely manner. f made no such claim for damages. Said supposed claim appears only from the Magistrate of the District Court, and the Defendant's. 4, There is the presence of evidence which largely consists of conflicting testimony, the granting of Summary Judgment to the Defendants prior to the completion of discovery, and seemingly deliberate wrongful use of Texas statute of limitations on actions committed by the Defendants. Furthermore, questions arise from punitive, and actual damages (particularly regarding 1st, 4th, 8th and 14th amemdment violations) that seem to vary from one Circuit Court to another (Circuit Court splits). Type text here

Docket Entries

2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-02-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 3, 2019)

Attorneys

David E. Ponder
David E. Ponder — Petitioner
David E. Ponder — Petitioner