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.

Carter v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections

May 30, 2007

KEVEN LEE CARTER, INMATE #R25659, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROGER E. WALKER, JR., ALAN UCHTMAN, RACHEL B. NUTTER, ROY L. GRATHLER, K. HESS, SCOTT MONTROS, PRISONER REVIEW BOARD, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim.

To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(f) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint and other pleadings into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.

COUNT 1: Against Defendant Nutter for falsely charging him with a disciplinary infraction.

COUNT 2: Against unspecified defendants for finding him guilty of disciplinary infractions and denying his grievances in violation of due process.

COUNT 3: Against unspecified defendants for failure to protect him from assault by another inmate.

COUNT 4: Against Defendant Grathler for unconstitutional retaliation.

COUNT 5: Against unspecified defendants for denial of due process in the revocation of good conduct credit.

COUNT 6: Against Defendant Hess for filing a false disciplinary report against him.

COUNT 7: Against Defendant Grathler for improperly handling his grievances.

COUNT 8: Against Defendants Grathler, Uchtman, Montros, and Nutter for unconstitutional retaliation.

COUNT 1

Plaintiff alleges that on July 2, 2004, Defendant Nutter charged Plaintiff with concealment of his identity, insolence, and disobeying a direct order. At a July 8, 2004, disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff denied the charges and argued that Defendant Nutter falsely charged him with the infraction because of her dislike of "child molester[s]." The Adjustment Committee found Plaintiff guilty of all charges and disciplined him with one month in segregation, a one-month demotion to c-grade, a one-month commissary restriction, and a one-month yard restriction. Plaintiff states he requested witnesses be allowed to give testimony, but that the adjustment committee falsely reported that Plaintiff did not request any witnesses. The administrative review board affirmed the finding of guilt.

When a plaintiff brings an action under § 1983 for procedural due process violations, he must show that the state deprived him of a constitutionally protected interest in "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990). An inmate has a due process liberty interest in being in the general prison population only if the conditions of his or her confinement impose "atypical and significant hardship...in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an extremely stringent interpretation of Sandin. In this Circuit, a prisoner in disciplinary segregation at a state prison has a liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population only if the conditions under which he or she is confined are substantially more restrictive than administrative segregation at the most secure prison in that state. Wagner v. Hanks, 128 F.3d 1173, 1175 (7th Cir. 1997). If the inmate is housed at the most restrictive prison in the state, he or she must show that disciplinary segregation there is substantially more restrictive than administrative segregation at that prison. Id. In the view of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, after Sandin "the right to litigate disciplinary confinements has become vanishingly small." Id. Indeed, "when the entire sanction is confinement in disciplinary segregation for a period that does not exceed the remaining term of the prisoner's incarceration, it is difficult to see how after Sandin it can be made the basis of a suit complaining about a deprivation of liberty." Id.

In the case currently before the Court, Plaintiff was sent to disciplinary segregation for one month. Nothing in the complaint or exhibits suggests that the conditions that he had to endure while in disciplinary segregation were substantially more restrictive than administrative segregation in the most secure prison in the State of Illinois. ...


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.