The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Robert Allen is in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, housed at all relevant times at Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff has filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights by the defendants, all of whom are Department of Corrections employees. More specifically, plaintiff asserts the following claims:
1. Defendant Correctional Officer Chad Todaro fabricated disciplinary charges against plaintiff on July 17 and November 12, 2003, in retaliation for plaintiff filing grievances against him, in violation of the First Amendment;
2. Defendants Major Scott Wine and Sergeant James Kloth failed to intervene to prevent Todaro from issuing fabricated disciplinary charges against plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
3. Defendants Lieutenant Craig Mitchell and Correctional Officer Minh Scott, who sat on the Adjustment Committee that convicted plaintiff of the November 12, 2003, charges, denied him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when they failed to permit him to call witnesses and present evidence.
Defendants Todaro, Wine, Kloth, Mitchell and Scott are before the Court seeking summary judgment. They argue:
1. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);
2. Plaintiff has no evidence of the predicate grievances that allegedly motivated defendant Todaro to retaliate against plaintiff;
3. Defendants Wine and Kloth lacked the necessary personal involvement for liability to attach, in that they did not directly participate in the fabrication of disciplinary charges against plaintiff, nor did they have an opportunity to intervene;
4. The disciplinary action taken against plaintiff by defendants Mitchell and Scott did not impact a liberty interest and therefore constitutional due process protections were not triggered; and
5. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, in that plaintiff cannot show that the defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights.
Standard for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels Int'l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2000). In determining the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the Court construes all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396.
If the moving party meets its burden, the nonmoving party has the burden "to go beyond the pleadings and affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact which requires trial." Borello v. Allison, 446 F.3d 742, 748 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-26; Johnson v. City of Fort Wayne, 91 F.3d 922, 931 (7th Cir. 1996). A genuine issue of material fact is not demonstrated by the mere existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties," Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247, or by "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, a genuine issue of material fact ...