MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Court's November 23, 1994 memorandum opinion and order (the "Opinion," 868 F. Supp. 1039)
granted in principal part the motion to dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") action that had been brought by Keith Leslie ("Leslie") against three Illinois Department of Corrections employees, but Opinion at 1042-44 kept alive Leslie's claim that Joliet Correctional Center ("Joliet") Reception and Classification Center Superintendent William Doyle ("Doyle") had gratuitously placed Leslie in segregative confinement for no reason at all. Following the issuance of the Opinion the parties brought that surviving claim into a posture of readiness for prompt trial.
But after the Supreme Court had then issued its end-of-Term opinion in Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995), Doyle's counsel filed a motion for summary judgment. Leslie's appointed counsel have filed a response,
and with the parties thus having joined issue the motion is ripe for decision.
To begin with, Doyle quarrels substantively with this Court's invocation of Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558-60, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (1979) as the predicate for finding that Leslie has a constitutionally-viable Fourth Amendment
claim against Doyle (Opinion at 1044 quoted the premise in Bell, 441 U.S. at 558 "that inmates...retain some Fourth Amendment rights upon commitment to a corrections facility"). This Court has examined the cases that Doyle cites and more (and it had done so before issuing the Opinion), and it remains of the view expressed in Opinion at 1044:
Although custody in prison is by definition an entirely reasonable "seizure" of a convicted felon (if it may be termed a "seizure" at all in that sense), it may fairly be argued that the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures (the Fourth Amendment right) embraces an inmate's entitlement not to be subjected to a major further limitation on his liberty--a commitment to segregation--on the mere whim of a correctional officer (for no penological purpose at all).