summary of the hearing which appears within. On November 15,
1984, Director Lane approved the Committee's findings and
disciplinary actions, with an alteration of the number of good
time days to be revoked.
Plaintiff contends that defendants are in breach of the
settlement agreement because the November 1, 1984 Adjustment
Committee summary is inadequate due to its failure to state
either the reasons for the disciplinary action or written
justification by the factfinders as to the evidence relied
upon to reach the finding of guilt.
Many of the issues presented by this complaint are similar
to those raised in the previous opinion of May 14, 1984, in
which plaintiff was involved in disciplinary proceedings of a
different nature. The major contention in the original case
was whether the proceedings utilized to determine plaintiff's
guilt satisfied due process under the fourteenth amendment.
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935
(1974), mandates that in a prison disciplinary hearing a
prisoner must be provided with "advance written notice of the
claimed violation and a written statement of the factfindings
as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the
disciplinary action taken" in satisfaction of the minimum
requirement of procedural due process. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563,
94 S.Ct. at 2978. Furthermore, defendants' own regulations,
which they agreed to follow in the event plaintiff violated any
rule or regulation (see Defendants' Exh. 1, at ¶ 6), requires
the Adjustment Committee to "specifically refer to the evidence
which convinced them to decide the committed person did or did
not commit the offense." Defendants' Exh. 11A, at p. 7.
Such protection is of paramount importance in a case such as
the instant one. Since the state was a party to the original
action which resulted in the settlement agreement, it has
placed itself in the position of judge and jury by way of its
reviewing process. The Court looks with disfavor on any
procedural shortcuts the state might take in interpreting the
terms of the settlement agreement and deciding whether
plaintiff has breached those terms.
Although the Adjustment Committee report alludes to the
reporting officer's statement, the facts contained in that
document are not stated in the summary. Furthermore, the
reasons for the disciplinary action taken, required by
Wolff and department regulations, are absent from the summary.
Under the "Reasons" portion of the summary, the report states
that plaintiff admitted not removing his shorts, but says
nothing about the remaining charges and the evidence relied
upon to find plaintiff guilty as charged. There is no
indication in the record of a logical connection between the
punishment invoked and the alleged violations. In fact, the
only violation possibly supported by the evidence of this
record is plaintiff's violation of DR-403, "Disobeying a Direct
Order." The maximum sentence for violation of DR-403, according
to department regulations, is 30 days demotion to B or C grade,
15 days loss of good time, 30 days in segregation, and 30 days
loss of privileges. Since plaintiff's punishment clearly
exceeded these maximums, defendants are in breach of the
Defendants' final argument is patently unreasonable.
Defendants suggest that if plaintiff was not afforded
procedural due process regarding the October 29, 1984
incident, he should file a new lawsuit and that "termination
of work release would be an element of plaintiff's damages."
Defendants' Response at ¶ 11. Given, however, that plaintiff's
projected release date is presently set for November 14, 1985,
requiring plaintiff to file a new suit would simply render moot
his request to be allowed to continue his studies. The Court
will not condone defendants' apparent strategy of wearing a pro
se plaintiff down until his claim becomes moot.
For all of the above reasons, finding that plaintiff will
suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, the Court
orders as follows:
(1) Defendants are in breach of the settlement agreement by
virtue of their failure to comply with department regulations
and minimal standards of due process in processing plaintiff's
grievance of the October 29, 1984 Disciplinary Report.
(2) Defendants are ordered to transfer plaintiff to the
Metro Chicago Community Correctional Center, or any community
correctional center which will enable plaintiff to complete
his studies at Roosevelt University in Chicago, within 10
(3) Defendants are ordered to restore plaintiff to Level IV
status (see Defendants' Exh. 9, at p. 4) within 10 days.
(4) Defendants are ordered to expunge all records of the
October 29, 1984 incident as relating to the unproven charges
of violations of DR-504C-102 (assaulting any person);
DR-504C-105 (dangerous disturbance); DR-504C-203 (drugs and
drug paraphernalia); and DR-504C-206 (intimidation or threat).
Furthermore, all collateral consequences of the above charges
shall be neutralized. The only violation that shall be
permitted to remain in plaintiff's record is his violation of
DR-504C-403 (disobeying a direct order).
(5) Defendants are ordered to recalculate defendant's
punishment within the applicable limits of DR-504C-403 within
(6) Plaintiff's motion for bail is denied as moot.
(7) Defendants' attorney is ordered to promptly communicate
the Court's order to plaintiff.
(8) The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
agreement and this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.