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.

MCCALL-BEY v. FRANZEN

June 27, 1985

LARRY MCCALL-BEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GAYLE FRANZEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER

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' settlement agreement.

I. FACTS

  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.

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' Exh. 10.

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 granted.

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 ...

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.