Hill v. Lappin
- Decided
- December 28, 2010
- Docket
- 09-5575
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,176 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) — Coleman 787353 v. Michigan Department of Corrections (2020)
- holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) — Doss 531147 v. Corizon Inc. (2022)
- holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) — Wilson 453216 v. Gwaltney (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.
Demetrius Hill is a federal prisoner who was incarcerated at United States Penitentiary — McCreary (McCreary) in 2009. Hill alleges that the McCreary prison staff placed him in segregated housing and threatened to transfer him to the lock-down unit at United States Penitentiaxy-Lewisburg (Lewisburg) in retaliation for grievances that he had filed against the McCreary staff. He also alleges that his life would be in danger if he were transferred to Lewisburg because the staff there would assault and possibly kill him due to his prior history of incarceration at Lewisburg. To avoid being transferred to the lock-down unit at Lewisburg, Hill sued the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and four McCreary staff members, seeking damages, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction to prevent his transfer.
The district court dismissed Hill’s complaint as frivolous because a prisoner does not have an inherent constitutional right to avoid prison transfers or segregated housing, and because his alleged fear of being harmed by the Lewisburg staff in the future was conjectural and lacking in specificity. Hill appeals the dismissal. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint, VACATE the judgment entered in favor of the defendants, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (2010)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.