the record does not support an inference that the members of the Adjustment Committee intentionally gave Haynes an excessive sentence. The court therefore grants defendants' Thomas Huskisson, Albert Esquivel, and Freda Butler's motion for summary judgment.
The next issue is whether the remaining defendants violated Haynes's constitutional rights by causing him to remain in segregation for nineteen days beyond his scheduled release date. The court notes at the outset that the Due Process Clause does not in and of itself create a liberty interest in avoiding segregation. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467-68, 74 L. Ed. 2d 675, 103 S. Ct. 864 (1983) ("administrative segregation is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point in their incarceration."). Nor does Haynes have a state created liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population. Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139, 1144-45 (7th Cir. 1988). Still, assuming Haynes has some protected interest in being released from segregation in a timely fashion, the court finds that defendants did not deprive Haynes of the due process of law.
"The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 558, citing Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 123, 32 L. Ed. 623, 9 S. Ct. 231 (1889). Where protected interests are at stake, due process "calls for such procedural protection as the particular situation demands." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18, 96 S. Ct. 893 (1976). It "is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place, and circumstances." Id., quoting Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1230, 81 S. Ct. 1743 (1961). In the instant case, due process required a relatively prompt resolution of Haynes's situation in light of the particular circumstances surrounding the incident. The court finds that Haynes received a fairly prompt remedy. There is no indication in this case that defendants ignored Haynes's requests to be released from segregation. Compare Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d at 1115-16, (due process violation where official essentially ignored prisoner's complaint that he was being held in prison beyond his scheduled release date); Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d 360, 368-69 (7th Cir. 1985) (liability of Director of Department of Corrections established where evidence indicated that he had knowledge of extensive segregation of inmate and did nothing about it). Although they could have acted faster, the court notes that the administration of a prison is "at best an extraordinarily difficult undertaking." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 566. Since defendants acted reasonably quickly to release Haynes from segregation, the court finds that the incidental delay in processing Haynes's complaint did not amount to a due process violation.
Finally, Haynes claims that, despite Warden O'Leary's instruction to the contrary, Haynes was kept on C-grade status for three months. Although this may be true, Haynes does not establish that defendants had any knowledge of Haynes's de facto C-grade status. An individual can be held liable under Section 1983 only if "he caused or participated in an alleged constitutional deprivation." See Rascon v. Hardiman, 803 F.2d 269, 273 (7th Cir. 1986) quoting Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983). At the very least, it must be shown that the alleged deprivation occurred "at [the official's] direction or with her knowledge and consent." Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d at 369. Once O'Leary ordered Haynes taken off C-grade, he had remedied the situation as far as he was concerned. If Haynes was being subjected to the continued restrictions of C-grade status, he should have filed a grievance, or in some way notified prison officials. Defendants cannot be held liable for a deprivation they did not know about.
For all the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, dismissing this case in its entirety.
GEORGE W. LINDBERG, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: FEB 3 1992