must be considered on a defendant-by-defendant basis. Burton v. Kuchel, No. 93 C 1472, 1994 WL 544361, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 1994).
As to Mr. Godinez, Mr. Allen, Mr. Williams, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Clevenger, Mr. Mussatto, and Mr. Acosta, Mr. Geder has not alleged, nor produced any evidence suggesting, that retaliation was even a remote factor in their respective decisions. Rather, Mr. Geder seems to be suing these defendants for alleged due process deficiencies in the disciplinary proceedings and Eighth Amendment violations relating to conditions of confinement. However, Mr. Geder has sufficiently demonstrated for purposes of this motion that retaliation was a substantial factor in Lt. Manning's decision to issue him the disciplinary ticket. Hence, Mr. Geder has presented a viable claim of retaliation only as to Lt. Manning. As to all other defendants, summary judgment on the retaliation claim will be granted.
2. Disciplinary Proceedings
Mr. Geder next claims that he was denied due process of law when certain defendants denied his repeated requests to take a polygraph test, refused to watch the film from a camera located at the B-West Tunnel Gate which allegedly recorded the events at issue, misquoted his statements on the Adjustment Committee report, and denied him the opportunity to attend the October 29, 1991 hearing. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court established the minimum procedural due process requirements to be afforded to prison inmates in disciplinary proceedings: (1) advance written notice of the claimed violation, no less than 24 hours before appearing before the Adjustment Committee; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present relevant documentary evidence in his or her defense, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals; and (3) a written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary action. Id. at 563-67; Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).
In the present case, the record indicates that Mr. Geder has received all of the procedural safeguards set forth in Wolff. First, Mr. Geder received advance written notice of the charges (the disciplinary ticket) on October 15, 1991, six days before the first Adjustment Committee hearing. Second, Mr. Geder was present at the first Adjustment Committee hearing, where he pled not guilty to the charges against him, presented evidence of his innocence, and requested Sgt. Tadlock's appearance as a witness on his behalf. As such, the second requirement is satisfied, despite the fact that Mr. Geder was not given the opportunity to attend the second hearing. See Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, supra, 969 F.2d at 361 ("inmates have no right to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses" at disciplinary proceedings). Third, Mr. Geder received the Adjustment Committee Summary, which outlines the evidence relied upon by the committee and the reasons for disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Court finds that no violation of due process took place during the course of Mr. Geder's disciplinary proceedings.
If the procedural protections set forth in Wolff have been followed, the only function of a federal court is to review the statement of evidence upon which the committee relied in making its findings to determine if the decision is supported by "some facts." Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1141 (7th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted); Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 344-46 (7th Cir. 1992). The role of a federal court in reviewing prison disciplinary matters is extremely limited; it may decide only "whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Hamilton v. O'Leary, supra, 976 F.2d at 346 (quoting Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985)); Shreve v. Roth, No. 91 C 3126, 1993 WL 390212, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 1993). Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at 455.
In the present case, the evidentiary basis for the Adjustment Committee's finding of Mr. Geder's guilt is the following: (1) the testimony of Sgt. Tadlock, Mr. Geder's witness, who stated that he did not know anything about the incident; (2) the testimony of Mr. Williams, who stated that he witnessed the incident and that the disciplinary report was true as written; and (3) the testimony of Lt. Manning, who made a positive photo identification of Mr. Geder and stated that the disciplinary report was true as written. Certainly, the eyewitness testimony of Lt. Manning and Mr. Williams could support the conclusion reached by the Adjustment Committee. See, e.g., Saenz v. Young, 811 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir. 1987). Since the "some facts" standard has been easily met in this case, summary judgment will be granted on Mr. Geder's claims challenging the constitutionality of the disciplinary proceedings as to all defendants.
Mr. Geder next claims that the defendants violated due process by placing him in segregation during the investigation and by failing to provide him with his court documents and other personal property during his stay in segregation. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal constitution itself does not create a liberty interest in remaining out of temporary segregation; to the contrary, "administrative segregation is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point in their incarceration." Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467-68, 74 L. Ed. 2d 675, 103 S. Ct. 864 (1983). Likewise, the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that Illinois statutes and regulations do not create a liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population or in avoiding temporary confinement pending the outcome of a disciplinary hearing. See Pardo v. Hosier, 946 F.2d 1278, 1281-83 (7th Cir. 1991); Woods v. Thieret, 903 F.2d 1080, 1082-83 (7th Cir. 1990); Cain v. Lane, supra, 857 F.2d at 1143-45. Since Mr. Geder had no liberty interest in avoiding confinement in segregation pending the outcome of his disciplinary hearing, his placement in segregation in and of itself did not violate due process.
a. Deprivation of Personal Property
Mr. Geder's claim that he was unconstitutionally denied access to "personal property to . . . take care of his personal hygiene" during his confinement in segregation does not withstand scrutiny. In Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232 (7th Cir. 1988), a prisoner who had been held in segregation for twenty eight days alleged that he was deprived of toilet paper for five days, that he was denied soap, a toothbrush, and toothpaste for ten days, and that he was kept in a filthy, roach-infested cell. Id. at 1234. In affirming the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of corrections officials, the Seventh Circuit held that the deprivations did not violate the Constitution because the conditions were temporary and the inmate suffered no physical harm. Id. at 1235-36.
In the present case, the deprivations experienced by Mr. Geder were of shorter duration, i.e., fifteen days, than those experienced by the plaintiff in Harris v. Fleming. Moreover, Mr. Geder fails to present evidence of any physical harm suffered as a result of these temporary deprivations. Accordingly, the relatively brief deprivations experienced by Mr. Geder in segregation may have been uncomfortable, but it cannot be said that he was denied "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Rhodes v. Chapman, supra, 452 U.S. at 347; see also Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574, 1579-80 (7th Cir. 1994).
b. Deprivation of Court Documents
Mr. Geder's claim that he was denied access to court documents during his confinement in segregation similarly does not state a constitutional violation. It is well settled that a prisoner has a constitutional right of access to the courts for pursuing post-conviction remedies and for challenging the conditions of confinement. Campbell v. Miller, 787 F.2d 217, 225 (7th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). However, with exceptions not shown to be applicable here,
to survive a motion for summary judgment, Mr. Geder must
allege some quantum of detriment caused by the challenged conduct of state officials resulting in the interruption and/or delay of plaintiff's pending or contemplated litigation.
Shango v. Jurich, 965 F.2d 289, 292-93 (7th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). In this case, Mr. Geder has failed to allege or present any evidence of delay or interruption in pending or contemplated litigation resulting from this deprivation. Accordingly, he has not stated a violation of the constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts.
4. Conditions of Confinement
Finally, Mr. Geder claims that the living conditions of the B-West cellhouse and segregation unit at Stateville are so poor as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In support of this claim, Mr. Geder lists a number of unsanitary conditions at Stateville, including the presence of defective pipes, sinks, and toilets, improperly-cleaned showers, a broken intercom system, stained mattresses, accumulated dust and dirt, and infestation by roaches and rats.
To state a violation of the Eighth Amendment, Mr. Geder must satisfy both prongs of a bifurcated test. First, he must demonstrate that, objectively, the conditions were "sufficiently serious" to be considered cruel and unusual. Farmer v. Brennan, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1977 (1994) (citations omitted); McNeil v. Lane, 16 F.3d 123, 124 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Second, from a subjective point of view, Mr. Geder must demonstrate that the defendants acted with a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 114 S. Ct. at 1977 (citations omitted); McNeil v. Lane, supra, 16 F.3d at 124 (citations omitted). In prison conditions cases, that state of mind is one of "deliberate indifference" to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 114 S. Ct. at 1977 (citations omitted).
Prison conditions are not unconstitutional simply because they are harsh and restrictive; such conditions are "part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 416 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, supra, 452 U.S. at 347). For a prison condition to violate the Eighth Amendment, it must result in "unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs," or "deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." McNeil v. Lane, supra, 16 F.3d at 125 (citations omitted). As stated above, Mr. Geder lists a number of poor living conditions at Stateville. However, these conditions, viewed separately or cumulatively, are insufficient to establish a specific deprivation of a human need, such as a lack of adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. See Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 114 S. Ct. at 1976. As such, Mr. Geder has failed to satisfy the objective component of this bifurcated inquiry.
Mr. Geder's failure to demonstrate "deliberate indifference" on the part of these defendants is even more glaring. A prison official
cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 114 S. Ct. at 1979. See also Lunsford v. Bennett, supra, 17 F.3d at 1580 ("Mere negligence does not satisfy the deliberate indifference standard. Rather, plaintiffs must demonstrate 'something approaching a total unconcern for [his] welfare in the face of serious risks, or a conscious, culpable refusal to prevent harm.'") (citations omitted).
In the present case, Mr. Geder has failed to show that any of these defendants knew of, and consciously disregarded, an excessive risk to his health or safety. In fact, one of Mr. Geder's exhibits actually refutes such a conclusion: on November 6, 1991, Warden Godinez directed the Stateville Chief Engineer to repair a broken heater and broken shower windows in Unit B-West in response to an emergency grievance filed by Mr. Geder. Complaint, Ex. 3, November 6, 1991 Memorandum to Inmate Selma Geder from Warden Salvador A. Godinez. Accordingly, Mr. Geder has also failed to satisfy the subjective component of the test. The defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Geder's Eighth Amendment claims.
There are no genuine issues of material fact as to Mr. Geder's claims against Mr. Godinez, Mr. Allen, Mr. Williams, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Clevenger, Mr. Mussatto, and Mr. Acosta. Accordingly, the Court enters judgment in favor of these defendants. Summary judgment as to Mr. Geder's retaliation claim against Lt. Manning is denied. Mr. Geder's "Motions to Accept his Erratum Sheet," filed July 28, 1994 and October 24, 1994, are granted. Mr. Geder's "Motion for Admended [sic] Summary Judgment," filed September 19, 1994, is denied.
ELAINE E. BUCKLO
United States District Judge
Dated: January 17, 1994.