Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arrington v. Sarff

March 22, 2006

OTIS ARRINGTON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KATHY SARFF, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

ORDER

This cause is before the court for consideration of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. [d/e 23].

The plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1983 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by psychologist Dr. Kathy Sarff. The plaintiff's rambling complaint made one clear claim: that Dr. Sarff violated the plaintiff's due process rights when she mistakenly classified the plaintiff as a sexual predator without even meeting with the plaintiff.

FACTS

The plaintiff was classified as a sexual predator within the Illinois Department of Corrections based on Administrative Directive 04.01.301 entitled "Inmate Sexual Assaults-Prevention and Intervention." This directive states that the Chief of Mental Health Services shall develop protocols to be used to identify an inmate as a sexual predator or as an inmate who is sexually vulnerable within the institution. A predator is defined as an inmate who has a history of sexually assaultive behavior. The factors may include:

1) the nature and number of prior incidents;

2) the age of the inmate at the time of the prior incidents;

3) the time elapsed since the prior incidents;

4) the inmate's physical and mental status; and

5) whether prior incidents occurred in a prison or jail or in a detention, youth, or mental health facility.

Once an inmate is identified as a predator, any housing assignment must be reviewed and they cannot be housed with another inmate identified as vulnerable to sexual assaults.

Neither side has presented any evidence concerning why the plaintiff was identified as a sexual predator. However, the plaintiff has included documentation demonstrating that he is incarcerated for Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault, Home Invasion, Armed Violence, Residential Burglary and Armed Robbery.

The plaintiff in his complaint says the defendant classified him as a sexual predator in 1997. He claims there are statements in her evaluation attributed to him that he never made.

The plaintiff says he never met with this doctor. In fact, the plaintiff states he did not know about the classification until 2000. The plaintiff says the classification has impacted what cell he is housed in and prevented him from picking a cell mate. The plaintiff also claims it has impacted his ability to get a prison job. Lastly, he says that correctional officers began to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.