2023年4月27日

囚犯攻擊情況下前馬裏蘭州獄警的請求上訴聯邦陪審團判決在2013年的囚犯攻擊是目前一項重要的程序性問題的中心由美國最高法院正在考慮。法庭星期一聽到參數的情況下,這要求一個“純粹的法律”的問題,是否解決簡易判決階段保存的吸引力。前中尉尼爾·杜普裏曾在馬裏蘭州接待,診斷和分類中心在巴爾的摩的攻擊,試圖上訴後,一個聯邦陪審團達成700000美元判決的囚犯,凱文年輕。年輕是由幾個獄警毆打MRDCC 9月30日,2013年,第二天他曾目睹其他囚犯侵犯另一個警衛。年輕是住遠離其他囚犯,因為他看到了攻擊,被其他囚犯被卷入襲擊衛兵,根據他的訴訟。三個軍官從細胞到細胞毆打囚犯,包括年輕的訴訟聲稱“錯位的報複”。杜普裏被指控在MRDCC製裁暴力文化,導演的報複性襲擊,告訴他想要的其他官員“血液流人的血,”根據聯邦審判證詞。陪審員年輕進行賠償後,杜普裏試圖上訴基於早期爭論他的律師提出了:年輕沒有排氣可用的行政救濟他監獄訴訟改革法案的要求。此前一名聯邦法官拒絕了杜普裏的參數在訴訟的簡易判決階段,發現內部調查罪犯攻擊的存在意味著其他行政救濟並不年輕。杜普裏沒有再次提出這個問題在試驗或試驗後運動。 The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the issue had not been properly preserved for appeal and declined to consider the substance of Dupree’s argument. The appeals court concluded it was bound by precedent, but acknowledged there is a split among federal circuit courts on the preservation question. At oral arguments Monday, the lawyer for Dupree told the justices that parties are not required to repeatedly raise a settled legal question in order to preserve it for appeal. “When a district court resolves a purely legal issue against a party at summary judgment, that issue is preserved for appellate review,” said the lawyer, Andrew T. Tutt, of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. “There is no requirement that if the case then progresses to a jury trial, the aggrieved party must make two additional motions repeating the same legal argument simply to ensure the issue remains live for review on appeal.” The justices raised questions, however, about whether the issue in the Maryland case is truly a “purely legal” one. Administrative exhaustion is an affirmative defense that involves determining whether a prison inmate went through every internal administrative proceeding available to them before filing a federal lawsuit. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the case may not be a good fit for the underlying preservation issue. “I just struggle to see whether maybe we picked the right case for deciding this question given that I would have thought that an affirmative defense, you would have had to raise something at trial,” Gorsuch said. “You didn’t even make a proffer of evidence. You didn’t do anything at trial on your own affirmative defense.” Allen E. Honick, one of the lawyers who represented Younger in his lawsuit, said this is not the right case to determine the preservation question. “The exhaustion issue is inextricably a mixed question,” said Honick, of Furman Honick Law. “It’s fact and law. … You need a factual finding of whether remedies were available.”