The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.
Plaintiff in this case, Larry McCall-Bey, has moved this
Court for an order to enforce settlement pursuant to the
Court's dismissal of this cause on September 4, 1984 and the
Court's retention of jurisdiction to enter any appropriate
order pending completion of the details of the parties'
On May 14, 1984, this Court granted plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment on his constitutional claims arising
out of an incident which occurred at the Menard Correctional
Facility on June 23, 1977. McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 585 F. Supp. 1295
(N.D.Ill. 1984). Plaintiff, then an inmate at Menard, had
been accused of deviate sexual assault against another inmate
and, following an administrative hearing, was placed in
segregation and reduced in grade. This Court, citing Hayes v.
Walker, 555 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1977) and Chavis v. Rowe,
643 F.2d 1281 (7th Cir. 1981), found that the prison's Adjustment
Committee had violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by
failing to provide adequate reasons for its finding of
plaintiff's guilt and subsequent punishment.
After the Court's decision in May, the parties reached a
settlement agreement in principle in September 1984. The cause
was dismissed on September 4, 1984, with jurisdiction retained
to allow the parties to continue negotiating the final written
settlement agreement. At that time the plaintiff was an inmate
at the Dixon Correctional Center. The parties began part
performance of the agreement when the Department of
Corrections assigned plaintiff to the work release program at
the Metropolitan Chicago Community Correctional Center
("Metro") on September 12, 1984 so that he could begin his
studies at Roosevelt University in Chicago. On October 5,
1984, the Court extended its jurisdiction to permit the
parties to finalize the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement, dated December 8, 1984, provides,
in part, that plaintiff would be assigned to a work release
program so that he could attend college in Chicago.
Defendant's Exh. 1, at ¶ 1. The Department of Corrections
further agreed to waive its normal requirement that an inmate
spend the first seven days in the
work release center orientation program. Instead, plaintiff
was allowed to begin attending classes "as soon as
practicable." Id. In exchange, plaintiff agreed to obey all
"rules and regulations of the work release program, as well as
all Illinois Department of Corrections rules." Id. at ¶ 6.
Plaintiff also agreed that if he was "disciplined for violating
any of the terms of (sic) conditions in this agreement or any
abovementioned rule or regulation, [his] assignment to work
release may be terminated, according to applicable Department
of Corrections Rules." Once terminated from the work release
program, plaintiff agreed to surrender himself to the
Department of Corrections "for incarceration in any
correctional center selected by the Department of Corrections,
and . . . remain incarcerated for the remainder of
[plaintiff's] prison term, good time excepted." Id. Although
dated December 8, 1984, the terms of the settlement agreement
were effective September 12, 1984. Id.
On October 29, 1984, plaintiff, while at Metro, received a
Resident Disciplinary Report charging him with violations of
DR-504C-102 (assaulting any person); DR-504C-105 (dangerous
disturbance); DR-504C-203 (drugs and drug paraphernalia);
DR-504C-206 (intimidation or threat); and DR-504C-403
(disobeying a direct order). Defendants' Exh. 10.
Specifically, the report states that during a routine search
of plaintiff at the Metro, plaintiff was told to "drop his
pants below his knees." Plaintiff was then told to "reach
inside the crotch of his shorts and turn it inside out."
Plaintiff refused. After being informed that he would be
subject to a complete search by Metro officials, the report
states that plaintiff "reached inside of his underwear crotch
and removed an object covered with paper." Plaintiff then "put
the item in the commode and flushed it." While the officer
attempted to retrieve the item, the officer states that
plaintiff "started wrestling with me to keep me from
retrieving the item." Plaintiff then flushed some cigarette
papers down the drain and a "scuffle" ensued between plaintiff
and the officer. Plaintiff was then handcuffed. Defendants'
On November 1, 1984, the prison Adjustment Committee
convened to hear plaintiff's Disciplinary Report. The "Record
of Proceedings" states:
Resident stated to Committee that he was not
guilty and that he did not take off his shorts
because the shorts would have torn. Resident also
stated that he told CRC Doby that he would take
off everything [illegible].
The Adjustment Committee found plaintiff guilty of the
violations charged, and gave the following reasons:
[Illegible] besides Disciplinary Report.
Admission of Resident not taking off his shorts
when ordered by CRC Doby lead the Committee to
believe that violation was committed as charged.
The Adjustment Committee ruled that: (1) 60 days of
plaintiff's good time be revoked; (2) plaintiff be demoted to
"C" level for 60 days; and (3) plaintiff be reincarcerated and
segregated for 60 days. "Other punishment" is indicated on the
report, but this segment of the report is illegible. See
Defendants' Exh. 11. On November 12, 1984, plaintiff was
placed in segregation at Joliet Correctional Center and on
November 15, 1984, the Director of Joliet Correctional Center,
Mr. Michael Lane, approved the Adjustment Committee decision
in part by revoking only 10 days of the recommended 60 for
good conduct. On November 23, 1984, plaintiff filed a pro se
motion to reinstate the cause of action, which the Court
On November 28, 1984, plaintiff's grievance was heard by the
Administrative Review Board; the Review Board recommended that
the grievance be denied. The reasons given by the Review Board
for its decision are:
Based on a total review of available information,
the Panel is of the opinion the inmate is guilty
of the infraction as cited. Therefore, the Panel
is of ...