The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, District Judge:
Willie Hadley, a state prisoner, has brought this civil
rights action pro se.
Summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiff claims that the defendants, various Graham
Correctional Center officials, violated the plaintiff's
constitutional rights by conspiring to: deny him due process in
prison disciplinary proceedings, retaliate against him for his
litigation, discriminate against him because of his race,
subject him to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, and
interfere with his access to the courts. This matter is before
the court for consideration of the defendants' motion to
dismiss, which the court construes as a motion for summary
judgment.*fn1 For the reasons stated in this order, the motion
will be allowed.
Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Herman v.
National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 604, 607 (7th Cir.
1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028, 105 S.Ct. 1393, 84 L.Ed.2d
782 (1985). In determining whether factual issues exist, the
court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. Beraha v. Baxter Health Corp.,
956 F.2d 1436, 1440 (7th Cir. 1992).
However, Rule 56(c) "mandates the entry of summary judgment,
after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a
party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on
which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial."
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. "Where the record
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the non-moving party there is no 'genuine' issue for
trial." Mechnig v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 864 F.2d 1359 (7th
Cir. 1988). A "metaphysical doubt" will not suffice. Matsushita
Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586,
106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Disputed facts are
material only if they might affect the outcome of the suit.
First Ind. Bank v. Baker, 957 F.2d 506, 507-08 (7th Cir. 1992).
The plaintiff is a state prisoner, confined at the Graham
Correctional Center at all times relevant to this action. The
defendants include D.O.C. Director Howard Peters and eighteen
Graham Correctional Center officials.*fn2
The following facts are undisputed for purposes of this
motion: On April 26, 1992, the plaintiff was employed as a
janitor in the health care unit. On that date, the plaintiff
made a request of the defendant Nurse Sanders to call two
inmates over to the health care unit so that they could discuss
"some legal matters." The following day, Sanders issued the
plaintiff a disciplinary report charging him with having
violated prison rule 103 (Bribery and Extortion). Sanders is
white; the plaintiff is black. The defendant Branhan served the
plaintiff with the disciplinary report.
On April 29, 1992, the plaintiff was interviewed by the
defendant Vunetich, a hearing investigator. After their
discussion, Vunetich reportedly told the plaintiff that it was
his conclusion there had been no rule violation.*fn3
On May 4, 1992, the plaintiff approached the defendant Fox to
inquire why the disciplinary ticket had not been expunged. Fox
allegedly became irate, made racially derogatory remarks, and
told the plaintiff that he would not be allowed to get away
with disrespecting a white woman.
On May 5, 1992, the defendant Gabean, another internal
affairs investigator, interrogated the plaintiff. The plaintiff
asserted that the ticket had been written in retaliation for
the plaintiff's lawsuit against Graham officials, and that a
conspiracy was afoot. Despite the plaintiff's protests of
innocence, Gabean issued a revised disciplinary report on May
12, 1992, confirming the charges of bribery and extortion. The
plaintiff made a fruitless, renewed effort the next day to
convince the hearing investigator that the charges were false,
causing the plaintiff stress and exacerbating his medical
Prior to the initiation of disciplinary action, the plaintiff
had been given a medical "lay-in" due to a burst hemorrhoid.
When the plaintiff returned to work on an unspecified date, the
defendant Cearlock, the health care unit administrator,
dismissed the plaintiff from his job as a porter. Cearlock
explained, "You were way out of line, Hadley, talking to Diana
like that so I'm gonna have to let you go."
The plaintiff wrote letters to the defendants Peters
(Director of the Department of Corrections), Dobucki (Graham
Warden), Baker and Sassatelli (Assistant Wardens) complaining
of his "retaliatory" treatment; however, those individuals took
no action on the plaintiff's correspondences.
On May 15, 1992, the plaintiff again appeared before the
Adjustment Committee. The matter was referred once again back
to Internal Affairs because the report inaccurately stated that
the plaintiff already had been found guilty of bribery.
On May 18, 1992, the plaintiff received the third re-written
disciplinary report. The defendant Gabean wrote the report
although he had not been present in the Medical Unit at the
time of the events giving rise to the disciplinary action. The
defendant Randolph reviewed and signed the purportedly
On May 21, 1992, the plaintiff was summoned before the
Adjustment Committee (composed of the defendants Stiff and
Reid) for hearing on the charges. A "Jane "Doe" also was
present in the hearing room. Rejecting the plaintiff's
arguments, the Committee found him guilty of bribery and
imposed a punishment of fifteen days in segregation and thirty
days demotion to "C" grade. The Committee further recommended
that the plaintiff be transferred to a maximum security prison.
The plaintiff was placed in segregation on May 21, 1992, at
1:15 p.m. The segregation cell was dirty and dusty, had a torn
mattress and lacked heat. Cold air blew from the vents. The
plaintiff's daily requests for gloves were denied. The
plaintiff had no bedding until 10:30 that evening and was
completely denied a pillow.*fn4 In addition, the shower was
"filthy," with mildew, clumps of hair, and cigarette butts on
the floor. The plaintiff was not permitted to make telephone
calls to his family while in the segregation unit.
On May 22, 1992, the defendant Baker advised the plaintiff
that he was not going to concur in the recommendation to
transfer the plaintiff to a maximum security institution;
however, he informed the plaintiff that he intended to
recommend job reassignment and continued placement in
segregation. The plaintiff was granted an early release from
segregation on June 1, 1992.
On October 25, 1992, the plaintiff was attacked by his
cellmate (Byman) for calling him a "bum" after having tolerated
Byman's purported lack of personal hygiene for months. The
plaintiff required hospitalization for his injuries. The prison
staff failed to prevent the altercation although they allegedly
knew that the plaintiff had a history of conflict "with just
about all his prior cellmates."
Despite the fact that the plaintiff was the only inmate
harmed, he, too, received a disciplinary report from the
defendant Fox for fighting. The Adjustment Committee, comprised
of the defendants Stiff and Davison, found the plaintiff guilty
of the charge and imposed eight days in segregation [or ...