United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle United States District Judge.
Robert Hoskins, an inmate in the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) prison system, filed this
civil rights action on March 12, 2015 against various prison
officials at Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”). (Doc. 1). According to the
Complaint, on June 19, 2014, Hoskins was involved in a
physical altercation with a fellow inmate in the
Pinckneyville dietary unit (chow hall). After the
altercation, Hoskins was in the process of being transferred
to the segregation unit when he was assaulted by Defendants
Chad Adams and Greg James. Shortly thereafter, Hoskins filed
an emergency grievance detailing the assault. Over the next
several days, Defendants Dustin Bowles, Scott Hill, Mark
Hartman and Bart Lind conspired to violate his constitutional
rights and to issue him falsified disciplinary charges. As a
result, Hoskins was punished with the revocation of
privileges and good time credits. He was also transferred
from Pinckneyville, a medium security facility, to Menard
Correctional Center, a maximum security facility.
Complaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(Doc. 7). In the Screening Order, he was found to have
articulated three colorable claims. In Count 1, Hoskins
stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against
Defendants James and Adams. In Count 5, Hoskins stated a
claim that Defendants Bowles, Hill, Hartman and Lind
conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights under
the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Count 6,
Hoskins stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against
Defendants Bowles, Hill, Hartman and Lind. The remaining
counts (2, 3, 4 and 7) were dismissed for failure to state a
Bowles, Hill, Hartman and Lind now seek summary judgment as
to Counts 5 and 6. (Doc. 77). The motion is opposed. (Doc.
80). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
following facts were obtained from plaintiff's deposition
unless otherwise noted. Plaintiff Robert Hoskins has been
incarcerated with the IDOC since 1991. (Hoskins deposition,
Doc. 78-1, p. 8). The incidents that give rise to this
litigation began on June 19, 2014 at Pinckneyville.
Id. at p. 10. On that date, Hoskins was involved in
a fight with a fellow inmate in the prison chow hall.
Id. at p. 10. The fight occurred during the 3 P.M.
to 11 P.M. shift. Id. at p. 10. After prison
officials broke up the fight, Hoskins was handcuffed and
taken to the Pinckneyville Health Care Unit by Defendant
James. Id. at p. 10. James was the Internal Affairs
Officer working that shift. Id. at p. 18. Hoskins
declined medical assistance and James escorted him out of the
Health Care Unit to the segregation unit. Id. at p.
Hoskins and James left the Health Care Unit, they were
stopped by Defendant Adams. Id. at p. 20. Adams
asked Hoskins “What's your f*ckin'
problem?” and asked him about his gang affiliations.
Id. at p. 20. Hoskins refused to answer.
Id. at p. 20. At that point, Adams and James began
punching Hoskins. Id. at p. 24. Hoskins then fell to
the ground, and Adams told James to “[g]et this little
bitch out of my face.” Id. at p. 24. As Adams
walked away, James picked Hoskins up. Id. at p. 27.
The two then proceeded to walk towards the segregation unit.
Id. at p. 27. At the segregation unit, James placed
Hoskins in Cell 54 in the “C wing.” Id.
at p. 33. Hoskins then filed an emergency grievance that
described the assault by Adams and James. Id. at p.
next morning, Defendant Hartman stopped by Hoskins' cell.
Id. at p. 35. Hartman was the counselor for the
Pinckneyville segregation unit. Id. at p. 38.
Hartman told Hoskins that he should not file any more
grievances against Pinckneyville staff members and that the
grievances “don't work like that” in his cell
house. Id. at p. 38. Hoskins' “Cumulative
Counseling Summary, ” an IDOC form that lists
inmates' interactions with counselors, states that on
June 20, 2014, at 9:28 A.M., Correctional Counselor Mark L.
Hartman spoke to Hoskins at his cell in the segregation unit.
(Doc. 1, p. 9). Hartman's notes from the interaction
state; “Seg. contact. DCA form initiated. States he
fears staff will harm him. Internal Affairs notified. Given
that day, Defendant Bowles stopped by Hoskins' cell.
Id. at p. 39. Bowles worked in the Pinckneyville
Internal Affairs Office. Id. at p. 39. Bowles told
Hoskins that his grievance was a “game changer.”
Id. The record is not quite clear as to what
happened next, but Hoskins later received a disciplinary
report for “#110 - Impeding or Interfering with an
investigation” and “#403 - Disobeying a Direct
Order.” (IDOC Offender Disciplinary Report, Doc. 1, p.
15). The report states that at approximately 12:30 P.M., the
Internal Affairs Unit arrived at Hoskins' cell to
interview him about the previous day's altercation in the
chow hall. Id. The report goes on to state that the
Wing Officer, Officer Wangler, gave Hoskins three direct
orders to come to the front of the cell and cuff up, but
Hoskins refused. Id. However, Hoskins testified at
his deposition that this exchange with Officer Wangler never
occurred. (Doc. 78-1, p. 40). On June 21, 2014, prison
officials served Hoskins with the disciplinary report for the
failure to cuff up incident from the previous day.
Id. at p. 41.
following day, Defendant Hill stopped by Hoskins' cell.
Id. at p. 41. Hill asked Hoskins “what was
up” with the grievance that Hoskins filed. Id.
at p. 41. Hoskins backed away from the cell door and refused
to answer. Id. at p. 41. Hill then left.
Id. at p. 41. Later that day, Hill issued Hoskins a
disciplinary report for “403 Disobeying a Direct
Order.” (Doc. 1, p. 16). The disciplinary report states
that at approximately 1:00 P.M. on June 22, 2014, Hill told
Hoskins to “pack his property” so that he could
be transferred but that Hoskins told Hill, “I am not
moving” and refused to move despite three direct
morning of June 23, 2014, Hoskins found the previous
day's disciplinary report from Hill under his cell door.
(Doc. 78-1, p. 45). Later that day, Bowles arrived at
Hoskins' cell to drop off two more disciplinary reports.
Id. One of the disciplinary reports, authored by
Bowles, charged Hoskins with “#100 - Violent Assault of
any Person, #104 - Dangerous Contraband, [and] #307
Unauthorized Movement” for the incident in the chow
hall. (Doc. 1, p. 17). The other disciplinary report,
authored by Defendant Lind, charged Hoskins with “#205
Security Threat Group or Unauthorized Organizational
Activity.” Id. at p. 19. This disciplinary
report also involved the incident in the chow hall, but
Hoskins received the additional charge because the fight was
gang related. Id. at pp. 19-20.
signed the reports to acknowledge receipt. (Doc. 78-1, p.
45). Bowles then told Hoskins to “pack it up” and
that he was being “shipped” out to a different
facility. Id. After he packed his belongings,
Hoskins was handcuffed and escorted to the “Bureau of
Identification” office for processing. Id.
Prison officials then placed Hoskins in an IDOC van and
transferred him to Menard Correctional Center. Id.
at p. 49.
received a total of four disciplinary reports for the
incidents that occurred from June 19, 2014 through June 22,
2014. IDOC regulations mandate that an inmate receive an
adjustment committee hearing after receiving a disciplinary
report. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504.80. During the
hearing, the inmate is entitled to present evidence in his
defense as to the disciplinary charge. Id. The
adjustment committee then makes a finding as to guilt or
innocence, and decides whether to impose disciplinary action.
received adjustment committee “Final Summary
Reports” for the four disciplinary reports, and was
found guilty on all four. (See Summary Reports for
June 19, 2014, incident at Doc.1, pp. 21-24; Summary Report
for June 20, 2014, incident at Doc. 1, p. 12; Summary Report
for June 22, 2014, incident at Doc. 1, p. 10). For the May 20
and May 22 incidents, Hoskins was penalized with three months
of segregation and two months of segregation, respectively.
(Doc. 1, pp. 12, 10). For the fight in the chow hall, he
received one year of segregation, a one year loss of good
time credit and a “Level 1 ...