Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

June 6, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Constitutional Law - civil rights
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinion.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinion.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

No Opinion.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

Spencer v. Bouchard (June 6, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0189p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant William Sim Spencer, a Michigan state prisoner
proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action against Defendants-
Appellees Michael J. Bouchard, Thomas Quisenberry, Snarey, and Wallace
(collectively "the defendants"), all officials with the Oakland
County Sheriff's Office. Spencer alleged various claims under the
First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. After the magistrate
judge recommended granting dismissal or summary judgment to the
defendants on all but one of Spencer's claims, the district court
granted summary judgment on all of them. Spencer's appeal has been
referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule
34(j)(1). Upon examination, we unanimously agree that oral argument is
not needed. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a). Because Spencer has offered
sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact with
respect to his Eighth Amendment inadequate-shelter claim against Snarey
and Wallace, we REVERSE that part of the district court's judgment.
Because Spencer has failed to satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform
Act's ("PLRA") administrative exhaustion requirement with
respect to his First Amendment claim against Bouchard, Snarey, and
Wallace, his Eighth Amendment inadequate shelter claim against Bouchard,
and all claims against Quisenberry, we VACATE that part of thejudgment
and instruct the district court instead to DISMISS the claims without
prejudice. Because Spencer has waived review of all other claims, we
AFFIRM the balance of the judgment. We REMAND for proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates