Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Mays v. Springborn, No. 05-3630

By FindLaw Staff on July 16, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a prisoner civil rights action, rulings against plaintiff are affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff did not present evidence to call into question the prison's explanation for denying him dietary supplements; 2) plaintiff failed to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a risk posed by his diet; 3) the court properly ruled against plaintiff's claim that the prison provided him with inadequate clothing as the evidence does not rise to the level of objectively serious harm necessary to show an Eighth Amendment violation; and 4) the court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law on his censorship claim as prisons have great latitude in limiting the reading material of prisoners. Judgment is vacated where: 1) the court should have let plaintiff's strip search claim go to the jury as there was relevant evidence on which the jury could have relied to conclude that the searches were done with an intent to harass; and 2) plaintiff's retaliation claim raised factual questions that should have gone to the jury.    

Read Mays v. Springborn, No. 05-3630

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
Argued June 23, 2009
Decided July 15, 2009

Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Per Curium Opinion

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard