No. 18-6223

Martin Jonassen v. United States, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-10-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 8th-amendment administrative-procedure cell-conditions civil-rights constitutional-rights cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process facility-design habeas-corpus inmate-safety prison-conditions prison-overcrowding standing
Latest Conference: 2018-11-30
Question Presented (from Petition)

1.a.Did the ath CiR. err bt Ruling (That the 10-17-17 District Ct. OrdeR Is Not a Final Appealable 'OrdeR.

A,b. Did the ath Cir. And the District Cout Err by Denying Movants (Jonsons) Injunctive/Medial Relief Repeated Reguests Without / Before Hholding Evidentary Hearing, At all?

1.cIs the Marlion petison listed as a U.s.P, high rediuun.

2. ertisoners, do sone have severdly high point ford custody carle.

3. Does P.s. l06o.ll 7(2)(a) state if leas than 75 squarde feet "sball" be rated single cell occuparcy only.

4. Dces P.s. lo6o.ll 5(2) state a cell is originally designed to fit the number of people and is suposed to be used as such.

5. Arle the cells less than I20 squade feet in size.

6. Does P.s. lo6o.ll 7(a) state that cell size does not include a cluset.

7. Lockers are perrenantly fixed and used to storle clcths is this not: cordlect.

8. Lcckers are consideried as closets and are not included in overd all space is this corriect.

9. Arle therie thriee inmates in most of the leas than l2o squadle foot cells.

10. Werdle the units designed only to house around 60 prisonerts.

1l. By design wirh added two. bunks do the units X,L,Y,N hold up to 180 prtisoners and add up to 48o extrla prlisonerls to the compound.

12. officerd night checks can they clearly view pztisoner on top bunk.

13. officed nignt checks, .can they clearily view prisoneri on middle bunk, meaning actual body part, not a rlaise.in the coveds.

14. Does the middle bunk have.a ladderd.

15. Does the middle bunk bare a large concriete shelf about l2"xl2" sticking out overi middle bunk.

16. Is the middle bunk and lowerd bunk 25% ord moxle unded anotheri bunk less than two feet if yourd in the bunk.

17. Does the middle bunk have a 3" piece of Angle Iron stick out frlom the bottom.

18. Does the overd crowding of cells assist in sprdeading dieases.

19. Was the ventalation systems incrleased to include extra pxisoners.

20. of the cells by getting approval fnom Regional before installing a blue curltain as in place of the cell doord being open ori closed perd policy and is still listed in the inmate hand book page 7.

21. The hallways arte 13' and 10' in some areas with a single 3' gate ford all 1200 pluss prisoneris to trlavel. Werle they expanded to house the extria 480 perisons. If not is this not a high.safety issue.

22. Is the commissarly aiways out of food ford sale, as it has been fori the past thrlee weeks,

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the 5th Circuit erred in affirming the District Court's dismissal without a hearing and denial of petitioner's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois

Docket Entries

2018-12-03
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2018-11-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.
2018-10-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2018-06-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2018)

Attorneys

Martin Jonassen
Martin Jonassen — Petitioner
United States, et al.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent