Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/haywood-v-drown-pln-amicus-brief-ussc-right-to-sue-prison-employees-in-state-court-2008/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:39:12+00:00

Document:
UPTOWN PEOPLE’S LAW CENTER, JEROME N.
State of Mo. ex. rel. Southern Ry. Co.
Prison Survey (NCES 2007-473). U.S.
Scalia, John, Prisoner Petitions Filed in U.S.
Statistics, (U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Wash.
D.C.) (Jan. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
adjudicated by the state courts.
contribution to the preparation and submission of the brief.
mistreatment of, and violence against, prisoners.
officers. She teaches in the area of prisoners’ rights.
civil rights that occurred while in prison.
unlawful conduct of prison officials.
inmates who seek help in the future from LSO.
states and abroad and eight times as many readers.
and civil rights in the civil justice system.
deprivations of their constitutional rights.
remotely analogous, are present in this case.
New York, exercises jurisdiction over §1983 actions.
State Courts, Appendix E (Thomson West 2007).
liable in an action at law or otherwise.
upheld the constitutionality of Correction Law §24.
that the Supremacy Clause prohibits.
cases, denying those victims access to the courts.
damages and the right to attorneys fees.
limiting statute but an immunity granting statute.
alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.
damages in any state court in New York.
Supremacy Clause. Howlett, 496 U.S. at 375.
rights by persons acting under color of state law.
proceeding for redress. . . .
brought in any court of the state . . .
claims as a claim against the state.
in particular. Kagen v. Kagen, 21 N.Y.2d 532 (1968).
(1912); McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry.
Co., 292 U.S. 230, 234 (1934); Testa v. Katz, 330 U.S.
recognized federal defenses to a § 1983 action.
The result can be no different in this case.
conceivable cause of action. People v. Luce, 204 N.Y.
claims based on a valid excuse or neutral reason.
Howlett, 496 U.S. at 372, 381.
McKinney’s Const., Article VI, §7.
rationale for the enactment of Correction Law §24.
these concerns is implicated by Correction Law §24.
inmates right of freedom of expression); Matter of Williams v.
informed of the existence of that right).
also Howlett, 496 U.S. at 357.
reason. McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry.
Defendants’ Excuse is Not Valid.
it out of line with state policies. 223 U.S. at 55-56.
defendants’ rationale leads to the same result.
Analogous State and Federal Claims.
292 U.S. 230 and Testa, 330 U.S. 386.
because suit was brought under federal law.
under the federal Emergency Price Control Act.
Martinez, 444 U.S. at 283-284 n. 7.
such as assault and battery.
arrest and assault and battery).
cognate state claims.7 See Testa, 330 U.S. at 394.
state Supreme Courts. See Testa, 330 U.S. 386.
(1st Dep’t 1999); the Emergency Price Control Act, Egling v.
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1979).
v. State of New York, 198 A.D.2d 822 (1993); De LaRosa v.
State of New York, 173 Misc. 2d 1007 (1997).
entertain §1983 actions against state correctional officials. . . .
Courts, Ch. 15:15 n. 23 (Thomson West 2007).
non-residents, State of Mo. ex. rel. Southern Ry. Co.
v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1 (1950).
residents should be subjected to a federal statute.
This is not a valid excuse. Howlett, 496 U.S. at 372.
Howlett, 496 U.S. at 380.
need to defend and appear as witnesses in lawsuits.
against any DOCS employee. Thus, in Gore v.
Correction Law §24. Neither Mr. Gore nor Mr.
to reduce prisoner litigation have been shown to be effective.
Between 1995 and 2000, prisoner lawsuits decreased by 39%.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Wash.
statute as preempted by federal civil rights actions.
Felder, 487 U.S. at 153.
were within the scope of their employment.
force claim was within scope of employment); with Murray v.
employment) and Bouffard v. Lewis, 139 Misc. 2d 786 (Sup. Ct.
guess wrong, risk having their claims dismissed.
research, see, Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., and Kutner, M.
Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey (NCES 2007-473).
concurrent jurisdiction over §1983 claims. Allen v.
McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 99 (1980), citing Monroe v.
Carriers v. Arguelles, 400 U.S 351, 359-360 (1971).
action only in federal court.
result in a complete denial of access to the courts.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).
Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 506-07, 73 L. Ed.
of access to the courts has been denied.
Hampton, 106 F.3d at 1285.
denied access to courts in the most literal sense.
intended by Congress to be protected under §1983.
civil rights victims to litigate a federal claim.
question cases.19 As discussed in The Federalist, No.
The Federalist No. 82, p. 555 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A.
of Law and Public Policy (1999) (citations omitted).
the United States.‖ Id. at 637.
over all federal statutes and laws.
a significant amount of the federal courts’ docket.
prison system. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1.
such, clearly violates the Supremacy Clause.
Haywood v. Drown, 9 N.Y.3d 481,500 (2008).
law.‖ Howlett, 496 U.S. at 377.
Haywood, 9 N.Y.3d at 500.
have jurisdiction over individual prison employees.
cannot substitute its policies for those of Congress.

References: §1983
 §24
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 §7
 §24
 §24
 v.

 v. 
 v.

v. 
 v.

 §1983

v. 
 v.

 §24
 v.

 v. 
 §1983
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 §1983
 v.