A judge said Friday that there is not enough evidence to find a constitutional violation concerning the treatment of a man who is isolated from other inmates at the Leavenworth County Jail.

A judge said Friday that there is not enough evidence to find a constitutional violation concerning the treatment of a man who is isolated from other inmates at the Leavenworth County Jail.

And District Judge Michael Gibbens said he cannot interfere with the operation of the jail unless there is proof of a constitutional violation regarding Matthew Astorga's treatment.

Astorga, 41, remains in custody at the jail as he awaits resentencing in a murder case and a trial in a battery case.

He was in court Friday to learn the judge's decision in what is known as a writ of habeas corpus case, which is a civil proceeding.

Astorga filed a writ of habeas corpus, complaining about his treatment at the jail.

The jail is operated by the Leavenworth County Sheriff's Office.

Astorga was convicted in 2009 of the first-degree murder of Ruben Rodriguez. The crime occurred Dec. 26, 2008, in Leavenworth.

Astorga received what is known as a Hard 50 sentence. This means he received a life sentence without the possibility of parole for at least 50 years.

But he now has to be resentenced in the case because the state’s old Hard 50 law was struck down by a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Under a new law, a jury will have to decide whether Astorga should once again receive the Hard 50 sentence.

The sentencing trial for Astorga is scheduled for Aug. 22.

A pretrial motions hearing is scheduled in the case for May 20.

Astorga faces a charge of battery on a county corrections officer in a separate case. This crime is alleged to have occurred July 15, 2014, at the Leavenworth County Jail.

Astorga is accused of spitting in the face of a jail officer.

A trial is scheduled in this case for May 15.

Gibbens has previously said there typically is a time limit for placing an inmate in segregation as a disciplinary measure. But Astorga is said to be placed in what is referred to as administrative segregation at the jail not because he is being punished but because he is considered a maximum security inmate.

Friday's hearing came after Gibbens heard testimony in February from Astorga and others regarding the inmate's treatment.

Mollie Hill, an attorney for the Sheriff's Office, argued Friday that Astorga is not being denied any constitutional rights.

Gibbens said there was no expert testimony offered during the February hearing about administrative segregation and conditions of Astorga's confinement. And Gibbens said he is not an expert on the issue.

The judge said he does not have enough evidence to say there is a constitutional violation.

Gibbens noted Astorga also had made complaints about his medical treatment at the jail.

Gibbens again said no expert testimony has been offered by a medical professional who has examined the system used at the jail.

He said the Sheriff's Office has shown there is medical care at the jail.

At one point, the judge said he believes officials with the Sheriff's Office are doing the best they can.

Twitter: @LVTNewsJohnR