The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Cleve Heidelberg, Jr. ("Shango," the name by which he is
known in the prison community) filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
("Section 1983") against various officials of the
Illinois correctional system, seeking injunctive relief and
damages stemming from (1) the prosecution of disciplinary
charges against Shango and (2) his transfer from Stateville
Correctional Center ("Stateville") to Menard Correctional
Center ("Menard").*fn1 Shango and defendants have filed
cross-motions for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule")
56 on Counts IV and VII of the supplemental complaint. Each
count asserts due process deprivations: Count IV in connection
with Shango's placement on investigative status and his
consequent discipline on charges of deviate sexual assault on
another Stateville resident, and Count VII in connection with
Shango's placement on investigative status on false charges of
assault on a Menard resident. For the reasons stated in this
memorandum opinion and order, each party's motion is granted in
part and denied in part.
On July 14, 1980 Stateville resident Stephen Edwards
("Edwards") complained to Stateville Internal Affairs Officer
Ulsey Price ("U. Price") that Edwards had been the victim of
extortion and "sexual assault and trafficking" at the hands of
Shango and other Stateville residents. U. Price arranged for
Edwards to take a polygraph examination. When the results
indicated Edwards had been telling the truth, U. Price issued
Resident Disciplinary Reports (RDRs) to Shango and the other
residents Edwards had named, placing them all on investigative
status.*fn3 Accordingly Shango was transferred to segregation
pending the outcome of U. Price's investigation.
On July 14 U. Price also prepared a preliminary
investigative report outlining Edwards' accusations, the
results of Edwards' polygraph examination and the results of
an examination of prisoner trust fund records consistent with
Edwards' charges of extortion. Thereafter U. Price interviewed
various residents as to Edwards' allegations, but he
discovered nothing — beyond Edwards' statement and the
confirming polygraph results — bearing on the allegations of
sexual assault against Shango. On July 23 and 24 U. Price and
Special Investigator Al Faro ("Faro," who had become involved
in the investigation after U. Price's July 14 request for an
emergency polygraph examination of Edwards*fn4) met with
Shango to discuss the investigation. Shango denied involvement
in any sexual assault on Edwards and demanded to see the
results of Edwards' polygraph examination. His demand was
denied on confidentiality grounds, and no other information
about the alleged assault was provided to Shango. Shango
refused to take a polygraph examination himself until he had
been given more specific information about the circumstances of
the alleged assault.
On July 25 U. Price issued a second RDR charging Shango in
Based on the results of an investigation
conducted by the office of Internal Affairs, and
the official results of a polygraph examination,
Resident Cleve Heidelberg # C01521] is being
charged, with being in Violation of A.R. 804
Rules No. 24, and 28.
On July 24, 1980*fn5 a copy of a polygraph
examination taken by resident Stephen Edwards
indicated, he was telling the truth, when he
stated that during the month of June 1980 on at
least one occasion you paid another resident to
force Edwards to have an unnatural sex act with
you. This action was clearly in violation of Rule
24. Engaging with others in or pressuring others
to engage in any unnatural sexual activity, and
Rule No. 28 violating the general laws of the
State or Federal Government to wit: Criminal Law
and Procedure 38-11-3. Deviate Sexual Assault.
Any person of the age of 14 years and upwards who
by force or threat of force, compels any other
person to perform or submit to any act of deviate
sexual conduct commits Deviate Sexual Assault.
(Definition 11-2 Deviate Sexual Conduct) "Deviate
sexual conduct" for the purpose of this article
means any act of Sexual gratification involving
the sex organs of one person and the mouth or
anus of another. You were given an opportunity to
take a pol[y]graph examination on these charges.
You Heidelberg C01521] decline therefore you are
Shango was served with the RDR at approximately 12:15 p.m.
July 25. He waived his right to 24 hours' notice and came
before the AC the morning of July 26.
Not surprisingly, the AC found Shango guilty of the charge
and recommended his demotion to C grade, confinement to
segregation for one year and deprivation of one year of
statutory good time. Its summary described the AC's reasons as
Interview with resident. Adjustment Committee is
relying on accuracy of polygraph examination and
Internal Affairs investigation.
Stateville Warden Richard DeRobertis ("DeRobertis") approved
the AC decision.
Shango then appealed the decision, first to the
Institutional Inquiry Board ("IIB") and then to the
Administrative Review Board ("ARB"). Both bodies affirmed the
AC decision, rejecting as insubstantial Shango's claim that he
had been denied due process. Accordingly Shango remained in
segregation (both at Stateville and later at Menard) from July
14, 1980 to July 13, 1981, when this Court entered a
preliminary injunction ordering defendants to remove Shango
from segregation, to restore to him the one year of good time
that had been forfeited and to credit him with the good time
he had lost ...