Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAMS v. LANE

September 3, 1982

WILLIE WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL LANE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Willie Williams ("Williams"), an inmate of Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville"), brings this class action*fn1 challenging the constitutional validity of conditions in Stateville's Protective Custody Unit (the "Unit"). Defendants are present and former (1) state officials with overall administrative responsibility for Stateville and (2) Stateville Wardens and Assistant Wardens. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action and on related grounds. Their motion is denied except as to Complaint ¶ 33.

Facts*fn2

On December 15, 1976 the Illinois Department of Corrections adopted Administrative Regulation 808 ("A.R. 808"), which provides for the creation of a Unit in each Illinois maximum-security prison. Each Unit is intended to house residents who request protective custody because their safety and security are threatened in the general prison population. Such status is accorded only upon a finding by prison authorities that it is justified for the requested purpose, and is subject to periodic review by the authorities.

A.R. 808 requires that the Unit be a separate facility to keep contact between Unit residents and the rest of the prison population to a minimum. It also provides, "Housing and programmatic accommodations shall be comparable to those provided for the general population."

Stateville's Unit was formerly located in a cellhouse used exclusively for protective custody purposes. In January 1979 the Unit was moved to Cellhouse B, several galleries of which are used to house disciplinary segregation and general population prisoners. Assignment to the Unit is often for periods in excess of six months; in Williams' case it has continued for more than three years.

Claims and Responses

Williams states that both as a result and as a condition of their protective custody status, he and other class members are denied:

    (1) "regular and reasonable" access to religious programs and
  the chapel;
    (2) "regular and reasonable" access to the law library and
  thus the courts;
    (3) food and food services comparable to those provided the
  general population;
    (4) regular access to showers, cleaning materials to clean
  their cells and regular laundry services;
    (5) a minimum of one hour per day of outdoor recreation and
  any other opportunity to exercise outside their cells;
    (6) access to education programs comparable to those provided
  to the general prison population;

(7) access to the general library and hobby crafts;

    (8) opportunity to work or participate in vocational programs
  and thus to earn wages or otherwise engage in productive ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.