Case Name: Kevin MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert SHAW, Unit Sergeant; Larry Bearley, Hearings Officer; Michael Mahoney, Bureau Warden; Myron Beeson, Bureau Warden; and Richard S. Day, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-12
Citations: 253 F.3d 1151
Docket Number: No. 97-35989
Parties: Kevin MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert SHAW, Unit Sergeant; Larry Bearley, Hearings Officer; Michael Mahoney, Bureau Warden; Myron Beeson, Bureau Warden; and Richard S. Day, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 253
Pages: 1151–1152

Head Matter:
Kevin MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert SHAW, Unit Sergeant; Larry Bearley, Hearings Officer; Michael Mahoney, Bureau Warden; Myron Beeson, Bureau Warden; and Richard S. Day, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 97-35989.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed June 12, 2001
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
We remand to the district court to determine in light of the opinion in Shaw v. Murphy, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1475, 149 L.Ed.2d 420 (2001), whether the prison regulations — particularly the rules forbidding insolence and interference with due process hearings — as applied to Murphy in this case are "reasonably related to legiti mate penological interests" Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 79, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), or vague and overboard as applied to him.