V 2001: Fill & Download for Free

GET FORM

Download the form

How to Edit Your V 2001 Online Free of Hassle

Follow these steps to get your V 2001 edited in no time:

  • Click the Get Form button on this page.
  • You will be forwarded to our PDF editor.
  • Try to edit your document, like highlighting, blackout, and other tools in the top toolbar.
  • Hit the Download button and download your all-set document for the signing purpose.
Get Form

Download the form

We Are Proud of Letting You Edit V 2001 With a Simplified Workload

Get Started With Our Best PDF Editor for V 2001

Get Form

Download the form

How to Edit Your V 2001 Online

When dealing with a form, you may need to add text, put on the date, and do other editing. CocoDoc makes it very easy to edit your form in a few steps. Let's see how do you make it.

  • Click the Get Form button on this page.
  • You will be forwarded to our free PDF editor web app.
  • In the the editor window, click the tool icon in the top toolbar to edit your form, like highlighting and erasing.
  • To add date, click the Date icon, hold and drag the generated date to the field to fill out.
  • Change the default date by modifying the date as needed in the box.
  • Click OK to ensure you successfully add a date and click the Download button when you finish editing.

How to Edit Text for Your V 2001 with Adobe DC on Windows

Adobe DC on Windows is a must-have tool to edit your file on a PC. This is especially useful when you finish the job about file edit on a computer. So, let'get started.

  • Click and open the Adobe DC app on Windows.
  • Find and click the Edit PDF tool.
  • Click the Select a File button and select a file to be edited.
  • Click a text box to make some changes the text font, size, and other formats.
  • Select File > Save or File > Save As to keep your change updated for V 2001.

How to Edit Your V 2001 With Adobe Dc on Mac

  • Browser through a form and Open it with the Adobe DC for Mac.
  • Navigate to and click Edit PDF from the right position.
  • Edit your form as needed by selecting the tool from the top toolbar.
  • Click the Fill & Sign tool and select the Sign icon in the top toolbar to make a signature for the signing purpose.
  • Select File > Save to save all the changes.

How to Edit your V 2001 from G Suite with CocoDoc

Like using G Suite for your work to finish a form? You can edit your form in Google Drive with CocoDoc, so you can fill out your PDF in your familiar work platform.

  • Integrate CocoDoc for Google Drive add-on.
  • Find the file needed to edit in your Drive and right click it and select Open With.
  • Select the CocoDoc PDF option, and allow your Google account to integrate into CocoDoc in the popup windows.
  • Choose the PDF Editor option to move forward with next step.
  • Click the tool in the top toolbar to edit your V 2001 on the needed position, like signing and adding text.
  • Click the Download button to keep the updated copy of the form.

PDF Editor FAQ

If 2 days are remaining in a 5 day test match, which 3 batsman should we pick from world cricket as the best choice for imposing a draw ?

If I have to choose players who are playing currently, I will choose:Hashim AmlaAlistair CookJoe RootIf I have to choose overall, I'd choose :Rahul DravidBrian LaraSir Don BradmanIt's really a short list. There are several other notable players. But I think thesr cricketers have he healthiest averages. Below is the top 100 test players of all time!ID Rat. Name Nat. Career Best Rating1 961 D.G. Bradman AUS 961 v India, 10/02/19482 945 L. Hutton ENG 945 v West Indies, 03/04/19543 942 J.B. Hobbs ENG 942 v Australia, 23/08/19123 942 R.T. Ponting AUS 942 v England, 05/12/20065 941 P.B.H. May ENG 941 v Australia, 27/08/19566 938 C.L. Walcott WI 938 v Australia, 15/06/19556 938 I.V.A. Richards WI 938 v England, 31/03/19816 938 G.S. Sobers WI 938 v India, 17/01/19676 938 K.C. Sangakkara SL 938 v England, 05/12/200710 936 S.P.D. Smith AUS 936 v England, 20/07/201511 935 A.B. de Villiers SA 935 v Australia, 24/02/201411 935 M.L. Hayden AUS 935 v England, 11/11/200211 935 J.H. Kallis SA 935 v New Zealand, 22/11/200714 933 Mohammad Yousuf PAK 933 v West Indies, 01/12/200615 927 R.G. Pollock SA 927 v Australia, 23/02/197015 927 E.D. Weekes WI 927 v New Zealand, 07/03/195617 922 A.D. Nourse SA 922 v England, 11/06/195117 922 K.D. Walters AUS 922 v South Africa, 23/02/197019 921 R.N. Harvey AUS 921 v South Africa, 10/02/195319 921 M.E.K. Hussey AUS 921 v West Indies, 27/05/200821 917 J.E. Root ENG 917 v Australia, 10/08/201521 917 D.C.S. Compton ENG 917 v Australia, 12/07/194823 916 S.M. Gavaskar IND 916 v England, 03/09/197924 915 G.A. Headley WI 915 v England, 25/01/194825 914 K.F. Barrington ENG 914 v New Zealand, 12/07/196526 911 B.C. Lara WI 911 v South Africa, 06/01/200427 909 K.P. Pietersen ENG 909 v West Indies, 01/06/200728 907 H.M. Amla SA 907 v Pakistan, 17/10/201329 901 S. Chanderpaul WI 901 v New Zealand, 23/12/200830 900 M.J. Clarke AUS 900 v Sri Lanka, 30/12/201231 898 S.R. Tendulkar IND 898 v Zimbabwe, 25/02/200232 897 W.R. Hammond ENG 897 v New Zealand, 04/04/193333 895 A. Flower ZIM 895 v South Africa, 18/09/200133 895 S.R. Waugh AUS 895 v England, 07/07/199735 893 K.S. Williamson NZ 893 v Australia, 17/11/201536 892 R. Dravid IND 892 v Pakistan, 20/03/200537 891 C.C. McDonald AUS 891 v Pakistan, 17/11/195938 888 H. Sutcliffe ENG 888 v Australia, 03/01/193339 886 G. Gambhir IND 886 v Sri Lanka, 28/11/200939 886 C. Hill AUS 886 v South Africa, 12/11/190241 885 Javed Miandad PAK 885 v New Zealand, 28/02/198942 883 D.P.M.D. Jayawardene SL 883 v India, 20/11/200942 883 G.S. Chappell AUS 883 v Pakistan, 05/01/197744 880 D.A. Warner AUS 880 v India, 13/12/201444 880 Younus Khan PAK 880 v Sri Lanka, 25/02/200946 878 W.M. Lawry AUS 878 v West Indies, 18/02/196947 877 A.D. Mathews SL 877 v New Zealand, 30/12/201447 877 G.A. Faulkner SA 877 v Australia, 31/05/191247 877 A.R. Border AUS 877 v England, 31/08/198150 876 M.P. Vaughan ENG 876 v Australia, 06/01/200350 876 R.B. Richardson WI 876 v India, 02/05/198952 875 R.B. Kanhai WI 875 v England, 26/08/196353 874 M.C. Cowdrey ENG 874 v New Zealand, 23/06/195853 874 A.C. Gilchrist AUS 874 v South Africa, 12/03/200253 874 A.N. Cook ENG 874 v India, 09/12/201256 873 G.A. Gooch ENG 873 v Pakistan, 27/07/199257 871 G.R. Viswanath IND 871 v Australia, 17/10/197957 871 L.R.P.L. Taylor NZ 871 v West Indies, 23/12/201359 870 E.R. Dexter ENG 870 v Australia, 02/01/196359 870 Inzamam-ul-Haq PAK 870 v England, 03/12/200561 869 V.S. Hazare IND 869 v Pakistan, 17/11/195262 866 A.I. Kallicharran WI 866 v Australia, 16/12/197562 866 V. Sehwag IND 866 v Sri Lanka, 22/07/201064 856 I.J.L. Trott ENG 856 v Sri Lanka, 30/05/201165 854 S.J. McCabe AUS 854 v England, 14/06/193865 854 A.L. Hassett AUS 854 v West Indies, 04/01/195267 853 R.B. Simpson AUS 853 v South Africa, 04/01/196768 851 C.A. Pujara IND 851 v South Africa, 30/12/201369 850 A.R. Morris AUS 850 v West Indies, 13/11/195170 848 D.R. Martyn AUS 848 v New Zealand, 22/03/200571 845 G.M. Turner NZ 845 v Australia, 26/03/197472 844 H.W. Taylor SA 844 v England, 20/02/192372 844 C.G. Greenidge WI 844 v England, 30/07/198474 843 G.C. Smith SA 843 v England, 18/01/201075 842 Misbah-ul-Haq PAK 842 v New Zealand, 13/11/201476 837 D.B. Vengsarkar IND 837 v New Zealand, 16/11/1988Players make the all-time list by sustaining excellent form over a prolonged period. The ratings shown are the highest points totals these players have attained and no player is allowed to appear on the list more than once.Please select statistic type.ICC RankingsThe Official Rankings for International Cricket!ID Rat. Name Nat. Career Best Rating1 961 D.G. Bradman AUS 961 v India, 10/02/19482 945 L. Hutton ENG 945 v West Indies, 03/04/19543 942 J.B. Hobbs ENG 942 v Australia, 23/08/19123 942 R.T. Ponting AUS 942 v England, 05/12/20065 941 P.B.H. May ENG 941 v Australia, 27/08/19566 938 C.L. Walcott WI 938 v Australia, 15/06/19556 938 I.V.A. Richards WI 938 v England, 31/03/19816 938 G.S. Sobers WI 938 v India, 17/01/19676 938 K.C. Sangakkara SL 938 v England, 05/12/200710 936 S.P.D. Smith AUS 936 v England, 20/07/201511 935 A.B. de Villiers SA 935 v Australia, 24/02/201411 935 M.L. Hayden AUS 935 v England, 11/11/200211 935 J.H. Kallis SA 935 v New Zealand, 22/11/200714 933 Mohammad Yousuf PAK 933 v West Indies, 01/12/200615 927 R.G. Pollock SA 927 v Australia, 23/02/197015 927 E.D. Weekes WI 927 v New Zealand, 07/03/195617 922 A.D. Nourse SA 922 v England, 11/06/195117 922 K.D. Walters AUS 922 v South Africa, 23/02/197019 921 R.N. Harvey AUS 921 v South Africa, 10/02/195319 921 M.E.K. Hussey AUS 921 v West Indies, 27/05/200821 917 J.E. Root ENG 917 v Australia, 10/08/201521 917 D.C.S. Compton ENG 917 v Australia, 12/07/194823 916 S.M. Gavaskar IND 916 v England, 03/09/197924 915 G.A. Headley WI 915 v England, 25/01/194825 914 K.F. Barrington ENG 914 v New Zealand, 12/07/196526 911 B.C. Lara WI 911 v South Africa, 06/01/200427 909 K.P. Pietersen ENG 909 v West Indies, 01/06/200728 907 H.M. Amla SA 907 v Pakistan, 17/10/201329 901 S. Chanderpaul WI 901 v New Zealand, 23/12/200830 900 M.J. Clarke AUS 900 v Sri Lanka, 30/12/201231 898 S.R. Tendulkar IND 898 v Zimbabwe, 25/02/200232 897 W.R. Hammond ENG 897 v New Zealand, 04/04/193333 895 A. Flower ZIM 895 v South Africa, 18/09/200133 895 S.R. Waugh AUS 895 v England, 07/07/199735 893 K.S. Williamson NZ 893 v Australia, 17/11/201536 892 R. Dravid IND 892 v Pakistan, 20/03/200537 891 C.C. McDonald AUS 891 v Pakistan, 17/11/195938 888 H. Sutcliffe ENG 888 v Australia, 03/01/193339 886 G. Gambhir IND 886 v Sri Lanka, 28/11/200939 886 C. Hill AUS 886 v South Africa, 12/11/190241 885 Javed Miandad PAK 885 v New Zealand, 28/02/198942 883 D.P.M.D. Jayawardene SL 883 v India, 20/11/200942 883 G.S. Chappell AUS 883 v Pakistan, 05/01/197744 880 D.A. Warner AUS 880 v India, 13/12/201444 880 Younus Khan PAK 880 v Sri Lanka, 25/02/200946 878 W.M. Lawry AUS 878 v West Indies, 18/02/196947 877 A.D. Mathews SL 877 v New Zealand, 30/12/201447 877 G.A. Faulkner SA 877 v Australia, 31/05/191247 877 A.R. Border AUS 877 v England, 31/08/198150 876 M.P. Vaughan ENG 876 v Australia, 06/01/200350 876 R.B. Richardson WI 876 v India, 02/05/198952 875 R.B. Kanhai WI 875 v England, 26/08/196353 874 M.C. Cowdrey ENG 874 v New Zealand, 23/06/195853 874 A.C. Gilchrist AUS 874 v South Africa, 12/03/200253 874 A.N. Cook ENG 874 v India, 09/12/201256 873 G.A. Gooch ENG 873 v Pakistan, 27/07/199257 871 G.R. Viswanath IND 871 v Australia, 17/10/197957 871 L.R.P.L. Taylor NZ 871 v West Indies, 23/12/201359 870 E.R. Dexter ENG 870 v Australia, 02/01/196359 870 Inzamam-ul-Haq PAK 870 v England, 03/12/200561 869 V.S. Hazare IND 869 v Pakistan, 17/11/195262 866 A.I. Kallicharran WI 866 v Australia, 16/12/197562 866 V. Sehwag IND 866 v Sri Lanka, 22/07/201064 856 I.J.L. Trott ENG 856 v Sri Lanka, 30/05/201165 854 S.J. McCabe AUS 854 v England, 14/06/193865 854 A.L. Hassett AUS 854 v West Indies, 04/01/195267 853 R.B. Simpson AUS 853 v South Africa, 04/01/196768 851 C.A. Pujara IND 851 v South Africa, 30/12/201369 850 A.R. Morris AUS 850 v West Indies, 13/11/195170 848 D.R. Martyn AUS 848 v New Zealand, 22/03/200571 845 G.M. Turner NZ 845 v Australia, 26/03/197472 844 H.W. Taylor SA 844 v England, 20/02/192372 844 C.G. Greenidge WI 844 v England, 30/07/198474 843 G.C. Smith SA 843 v England, 18/01/201075 842 Misbah-ul-Haq PAK 842 v New Zealand, 13/11/201476 837 D.B. Vengsarkar IND 837 v New Zealand, 16/11/198877 828 K.J. Hughes AUS 828 v India, 27/01/198177 828 F.M.M. Worrell WI 828 v England, 10/02/195479 825 H.H. Gibbs SA 825 v West Indies, 20/01/200479 825 D.L. Amiss ENG 825 v India, 08/07/197481 824 Saeed Anwar PAK 824 v Australia, 09/11/199982 823 C.C. Hunte WI 823 v England, 06/06/196683 822 I.R. Bell ENG 822 v India, 22/08/201183 822 D.I. Gower ENG 822 v West Indies, 25/03/198685 820 W.M. Woodfull AUS 820 v South Africa, 02/02/193286 819 Hanif Mohammad PAK 819 v India, 06/12/196087 818 M.E. Trescothick ENG 818 v Pakistan, 16/11/200587 818 C.H. Lloyd WI 818 v India, 14/12/198387 818 R.M. Cowper AUS 818 v India, 30/01/196890 813 J.C. Adams WI 813 v Australia, 25/04/199591 811 I.M. Chappell AUS 811 v West Indies, 30/12/197591 811 I.T. Botham ENG 811 v India, 12/07/198293 809 R.A. Smith ENG 809 v West Indies, 12/08/199194 808 J.B. Stollmeyer WI 808 v India, 23/02/195395 807 S.M. Katich AUS 807 v Pakistan, 17/07/201096 804 G.P. Howarth NZ 804 v India, 25/02/198197 803 Zaheer Abbas PAK 803 v India, 18/01/198398 802 P.E. Richardson ENG 802 v New Zealand, 28/07/195899 801 V.T. Trumper AUS 801 v England, 02/06/1905100 800 C.G. Macartney AUS 800 v England, 28/07/1926Hope it helped!

What are your favorite Supreme Court dissents?

Pennsylvania v. Nathan Dunlap (Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Kennedy joined, dissenting from denial of certiorari:North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcot­ics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Under­cover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three­ dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.That was not good enough for the Pennsylvania Su­preme Court, which held in a divided decision that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant. The Court concluded that a “single, isolated transaction” in a high-crime area was insufficient to justify the arrest, given that the officer did not actually see the drugs, there was no tip from an informant, and the defendant did not at­tempt to flee. 941 A. 2d 671, 679 (2007). I disagree with that conclusion, and dissent from the denial of certiorari. A drug purchase was not the only possible explanation for the defendant’s conduct, but it was certainly likely enough to give rise to probable cause.Full opinion available here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1486.pdf

Why aren't jails and prisons routinely inspected to make sure the prisons’ living conditions are up to standards?

They are, but it’s a scam here’s an article from prison legal news.How the Courts View ACA Accreditationby Alex FriedmannThe American Correctional Association (ACA), a private non-profit organization composed mostly of current and former corrections officials, provides accreditation to prisons, jails and other detention facilities.According to the ACA, “Accreditation is a system of verification that correctional agencies/facilities comply with national standards promulgated by the American Correctional Association. Accreditation is achieved through a series of reviews, evaluations, audits and hearings.”To achieve accreditation a facility must comply with 100% of applicable mandatory standards and at least 90% of applicable non-mandatory standards. Under some circumstances, the ACA may waive certain accreditation standards. There are different standards for different types of facilities, such as adult correctional institutions, jails, juvenile detention facilities and boot camp programs.The standards are established by the ACA with no oversight by government agencies, and the organization basically sells accreditation by charging fees ranging from $8,100 to $19,500, depending on the number of days and auditors involved and the number of facilities being accredited. [See, e.g.: PLN, Aug. 2014, p.24].The ACA relies heavily on such fees; it reported receiving more than $4.5 million in accreditation fees in 2011 – almost half its total revenue that year. The organization thus has a financial incentive to provide as many accreditations as possible.Notably, the accreditation process is basically a paper review. The ACA does not provide oversight or ongoing monitoring of correctional facilities, but only verifies whether a facility has policies that comply with the ACA’s self-promulgated standards at the time of accreditation. Following initial accreditation, facilities are re-accredited at three-year intervals.As a result, some prisons have experienced significant problems despite being accredited. For example, the Otter Creek Correctional Center in Kentucky, operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), was accredited by the ACA in 2009 when at least five prison employees were prosecuted for raping or sexually abusing prisoners. [See: PLN, Oct. 2009, p.40]. Kentucky and Hawaii withdrew their female prisoners from Otter Creek following the sex scandal, but the facility did not lose its ACA accreditation. The prison has since closed.The privately-operated Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility in Mississippi was accredited by the ACA even though the U.S. Department of Justice found “systemic, egregious practices” at the facility, including “brazen” sexual activity between staff and offenders that was “among the worst that we’ve seen in any facility anywhere in the nation.” When approving a settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Walnut Grove in 2012, a U.S. District Court wrote that the facility had “allowed a cesspool of unconstitutional and inhuman acts and conditions to germinate, the sum of which places the offenders at substantial ongoing risk.” [See: PLN, Nov. 2013, p.30].More recently, the ACA-accredited Idaho Correctional Center, operated by CCA, has been cited for extremely high levels of violence, understaffing and fraudulent reporting of staffing hours. A video of CCA guards failing to intervene while one prisoner was brutally beaten by another has been widely circulated. CCA was held in contempt by a federal court in September 2013 for violating a settlement in a class-action lawsuit against the facility, and a separate suit alleges that CCA employees collaborated with gang members to maintain control at the prison. The state took control of the Idaho Correctional Center on July 1, 2014 and the FBI is currently conducting an investigation into CCA’s staffing fraud. [See: PLN, Oct. 2013, p.28; May 2013, p.22; Feb. 2012, p.30]. Regardless, the facility remains accredited by the ACA.Prisoners who litigate prison and jail conditions cases sometimes try to raise claims related to violations of ACA standards, even though the standards alone do not create enforceable rights. On the other side of such lawsuits, the ACA says the benefits of accreditation for corrections officials include “a stronger defense against litigation through documentation and the demonstration of a ‘good faith’ effort to improve conditions of confinement.”But how do the courts view ACA accreditation – and comparable accreditation of prison and jail medical services by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) – both in terms of claims alleging violations of accreditation standards and as a defense by prison officials?The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543 n.27 (1979) that accreditation does not determine constitutionality. With respect to standards established by organizations such as the American Correctional Association, the Court wrote: “[W]hile the recommendations of these various groups may be instructive in certain cases, they simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question.”In Grenning v. Miller-Stout, 739 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014), the defendants contended that the level of lighting in a prisoner’s cell “passed the national accreditation standards of the ACA....” However, the Ninth Circuit said it was “unable to determine ... the significance of the ‘accreditation’ by the ACA. We are not informed of the standards of the ACA, nor are we informed about the thoroughness of the testing performed” at the prison. The mere fact of ACA accreditation did not entitle the defendants to summary judgment on the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim. [See article on p.40].The Fifth Circuit stated in Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 337 (5th Cir. 2004) that it was “absurd to suggest that the federal courts should subvert their judgment as to alleged Eighth Amendment violations to the ACA whenever it has relevant standards. Additionally, the ACA’s limited inspections are not be [sic] binding as factual findings on the magistrate or on this court. While compliance with ACA’s standards may be a relevant consideration, it is not per se evidence of constitutionality.”Further, in a lawsuit challenging inadequate medical care in the jail system in Maricopa County, Arizona, a federal district court wrote: “The Board Defendants argue that because the parties stipulated to incorporate in the Amended Judgment the ‘essential’ standards for health services in jails of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (‘NCCHC’), Correctional Health Services adopted policies conforming to NCCHC standards, and Correctional Health Services substantially complies with all of the ‘essential’ NCCHC standards, they have met their burden in proving there are no current and ongoing violations of pretrial detainees’ federal rights.”However, “The Court decides independently whether there are current and ongoing violations of pretrial detainees’ constitutional rights and does not rely on any determinations made by an accrediting organization such as the NCCHC. The NCCHC ‘essential’ standards do not specifically focus on all of pretrial detainees’ constitutional rights.”Additionally, the district court noted that “Some of the NCCHC ‘essential’ standards address administrative functions and are not narrowly tailored to meet constitutional requirements,” and “[a]lthough the NCCHC standards may be helpful for a jail, the Court makes its findings based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”The court found that healthcare services provided by the defendants remained unconstitutional despite NCCHC accreditation. See: Graves v. Arpaio, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85935 (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2008) [PLN, Jan. 2010, p.43; May 2009, p.28].In Texas, a federal district court commented on accreditation of Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) facilities by both the ACA and NCCHC.“While TDCJ’s participation in the ACA accreditation process is to be commended, accreditation, in itself, is not a clear indication that TDCJ is properly following its policies and procedures. Experts from both parties recognized the limitations of ACA accreditation,” the court wrote, noting “that ACA accreditation is a tool, but not a constitutional standard.”The district court also remarked that one expert had “testified to a number of examples where a prison system was accredited by the ACA, but was, nevertheless, held by a court to be operating in an unconstitutional fashion, including prisons in Florida and the San Quentin prison in California.”With respect to accreditation by the NCCHC, the district court stated: “Rather than analyze the actual quality of the medical care received by inmates, the NCCHC’s evaluation focuses on the written standards, policies, protocols, bureaucracy, and infrastructure that makes up the medical care system [cite omitted]. Further undermining defendants’ attempt to use NCCHC accreditation as a proxy for a certification of the constitutionality of its medical care is the fact that at least two of the plaintiffs’ experts who testified about profound shortcomings in the quality of care in TDCJ-ID also work as NCCHC accreditors.... While NCCHC accreditation does bolster defendants’ claims that its medical care system is functioning constitutionally, the accreditation simply cannot be dispositive of such a conclusion.” See: Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F.Supp.2d 855, 902, 924-25 (S.D. Tex. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001).A U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico also found that prison medical care was unconstitutional despite accreditation by the NCCHC, with the court noting “the National Commission on Correctional Health Care in 1992 had accredited the medical care programs at four prisons and provisionally accredited four more, with several additional prisons under consideration for accreditation. However, one of the monitor’s consultants, Dr. Ronald Shansky, found noncompliance with at least one essential standard at every institution the Commission had accredited.” The court further observed that “During this investigation, Department of Health personnel provided the monitor’s staff with credible evidence that other employees had falsified documents in support of accreditation.” See: Feliciano v. Gonzalez, 13 F.Supp.2d 151, 158 n.3 (D.P.R. 1998).A Florida district court addressed ACA accreditation in LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F.Supp. 647, 655 (S.D. Fla. 1987), appeal dismissed, 861 F.2d 724 (11th Cir. 1988), stating: “Defendants make much of the relevance to this litigation of the accreditation of prisons and [Glades Correctional Institution] in particular by the American Correctional Association. The Magistrate found that the GCI accreditation had ‘virtually no significance’ to this lawsuit because accredited prisons have been found unconstitutional by courts. Having considered the GCI accreditation along with the remainder of the evidence, the undersigned district court finds it of marginal relevance in this case.”And in a challenge to the adequacy of the law library at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility in Colorado, a district court stated it was “simply ludicrous” for the defendants to argue they were entitled to summary judgment because “the American Correctional Association formally accredited” the facility and ACA standards address prison law libraries. See: Boulies v. Ricketts, 518 F.Supp. 687, 689 (D. Colo. 1981).However, other courts have taken ACA accreditation into consideration when determining the constitutionality of policies or practices at correctional facilities, such as in Yellow Horse v. Pennington County, 225 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir. 2000) (suicide prevention procedures) and Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 697 (4th Cir. 1999) (death of restrained prisoner).Therefore, incarcerated litigants should use caution when basing arguments on violations of accreditation standards rather than violations of constitutional or statutory rights, and should note the above case law when corrections officials raise accreditation as a defense in lawsuits related to conditions of confinement in prisons and jails.Additional source: http://www.aca.org

People Want Us

ComplyZoom - Worry No More About CyberSecurity and Compliance. uses CocoDoc to electronically sign all documents. Our customers love it and it makes the entire process painless!

Justin Miller