prison population and determined that there were relatively few privileges enjoyed by the general prison population that were denied to prisoners in segregation. Id. at 2301. On that basis, the Court concluded that placing Conner in disciplinary segregation for thirty days "did not work a major disruption in his environment." Id.
In Sandin, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its approach in Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451, 96 S. Ct. 2532 (1976), in which it had addressed whether a prisoner had a liberty interest in being assigned to a particular penal facility, or, in other words, in avoiding transfer to another prison with a less hospitable environment. Sandin, 115 S. Ct. at 2300. In Meachum, the Court held that not every "change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner involved is sufficient to invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause." 427 U.S. at 224. The Court found that the prison regulations at issue afforded prison officials discretion to transfer prisoners "for whatever reason or for no reason at all." Id. at 228.
The defendants argue that Sandin allows us to consider only whether the expected scope of Hamilton's sentence was affected by the disciplinary action. We disagree, for we do not read Sandin so narrowly. Neither does the Seventh Circuit. In Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), the Seventh Circuit interpreted Sandin as recognizing, in essence, two sources for liberty interests: those created by the states through statutes or regulations, which "'will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes [an] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,'" id. at 531 (quoting Sandin, 115 S. Ct. at 2300), and those existing independently of state regulations, which are limited to showing "that the infringement of [an inmate's] liberty exceeded the expected scope of his sentence."
Id. at 531, n.5 (citing Sandin, 115 S. Ct. at 2299-2300).
Whitford is instructive for another reason as well. In it, the Seventh Circuit rejected Whitford's claim that a disciplinary transfer to a maximum security prison from a facility with less stringent security violated his due process rights, citing Meachum, 63 F.3d at 532. The Seventh Circuit noted that, just as in Meachum, a prisoner in Illinois may be transferred even without being convicted of a disciplinary infraction; therefore, the court reasoned, a prisoner "may not contest his transfer on the ground that his conviction violated due process." Id. at 532-33.
While neither DeTomaso nor Whitford alone resolves the question presented by this case, together they make the answer clear. Hamilton had no liberty interest in obtaining his original assignment to work release under DeTomaso, and he had no liberty interest in remaining at any particular prison facility, or at a facility of any particular security level, under Whitford. Under these circumstances, we cannot see how Hamilton could have a liberty interest in avoiding a disciplinary transfer from a work release facility to a more secure facility.
Hamilton cannot state a claim for the violation of his fourth amendment rights on these facts. And, because his due process claim regarding the administrative review board's action also depends upon the existence of a liberty interest in work release, that claim fails as well. Therefore, we do not reach the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and we grant judgment in their favor on Hamilton's fourth amendment claims.
II. Eighth Amendment Claim
Hamilton's remaining constitutional claim is that the conditions at Joliet violated his eighth amendment rights. Specifically, he claims that his assignment to a double cell with a cellmate who smoked, the provision of only minimal toiletries, and the denial of regular showers for a period of twenty-eight days constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
To state an eighth amendment claim, a plaintiff must allege that the prison officials, on a subjective level, acted with deliberate indifference, and that the wrongdoing was, on an objective level, sufficiently harmful to establish a constitutional violation. Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574, 1579 (7th Cir. 1994). We address the latter issue first. "The objective analysis focuses on the nature of the defendants' acts, and whether the conditions [the prisoner was] forced to endure exceeded contemporary bounds of decency of a mature, civilized society." Id. Where an eighth amendment claim concerns conditions of confinement, the prisoner must demonstrate that he suffered a deprivation of the "'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.'" Id. (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981)).
The Seventh Circuit has held that the exposure of an asthmatic prisoner to second-hand smoke from a cellmate for a limited period of time does not establish a constitutional violation. Oliver v. Deen, 77 F.3d 156, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 2833, 1996 WL 74789, at *3 (7th Cir. 1996). Similarly, requiring a prisoner to share a cell does not violate the eighth amendment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981). And, denying a prisoner regular showers and ample supplies of toiletries for a finite period, such as twenty-eight days, does not demonstrate a deprivation of the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." See Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (7th Cir. 1988). Thus, Hamilton cannot state a claim for violation of his eighth amendment rights on these facts. Again, we do not reach the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Hamilton's eighth amendment claim, and we grant judgment in their favor on it.
For the reasons set forth above, we grant the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and we grant judgment in their favor on all claims. This order is final and appealable.
Paul E. Plunkett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: March 19, 1996