Sanchez v. Pfister et al
Filing
38
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 4/9/2015: IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment is GRANTED 35 . The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. All pen ding motions are denied as moot, and this case is terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs. Plaintiff remains responsible for the $350.00 filing fee. 2) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal wit h this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues the Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v Edwards, 164 F.3d 96,398 (7th Cir. 1999)(an appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge "can make a rea sonable assessment of the issue of good faith."); Walker v O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)(providing that a good faith appeal is an appeal that "a reasonable person could supposehas some merit" from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER & OPINION) (JRK, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 09 April, 2015 09:01:41 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERNESTO SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY S. PFISTER, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13-1527
ORDER & OPINION
Matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants
(Doc. 35). Responses were due February 5, 2015. As of the date of this Order & Opinion,
Plaintiff has not filed a response. For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment shall be granted where “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. SMS Demag Aktiengesellschaft v. Material Scis.
Corp., 565 F.3d 365, 368 (7th Cir. 2009). All inferences drawn from the facts must be construed
in favor of the non-movant. Moore v. Vital Prods., Inc., 641 F.3d 253, 256 (7th Cir. 2011). To
survive summary judgment, the “nonmovant must show through specific evidence that a triable
issue of fact remains on issues on which he bears the burden of proof at trial.” Warsco v.
Preferred Technical Grp., 258 F.3d 557, 563 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 324 (1986)). If the evidence on record could not lead a reasonable jury to find for the
non-movant, then no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. See McClendon v. Ind. Sugars, Inc., 108 F.3d 789, 796 (7th Cir. 1997). At the
Page 1 of 5
summary judgment stage, the court may not resolve issues of fact; disputed material facts must
be left for resolution at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff was transferred from Stateville Correctional Center
(“Stateville”) to Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”) and housed in a segregation unit. Two
days later, on March 10, 2012, Plaintiff received a copy of a disciplinary report authored by
Defendant Tejada indicating that Plaintiff was placed on investigative status at Stateville,
prompting the transfer to Pontiac.
On April 5, 2012, Plaintiff received written notice of the disciplinary report charging him
with the following offenses: 105 Dangerous Disturbances, 205: Security Threat Group or
Unauthorized Activity, and 601 to 102: Soliciting or Conspiring to Assault Any Person. Plaintiff
was allowed to submit a request for witnesses to be interviewed in his defense, and Plaintiff’s
requested witness made a statement to the Adjustment Committee. On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff
appeared before the Adjustment Committee with Defendant Hamilton serving as the Committee
Chair Person, and Defendant Joyner serving as a Committee member. After the hearing, on
April 29, 2012, Plaintiff received a written copy of the Adjustment Committee’s Final Summary
Report detailing the evidence relied upon by the Committee and the reasons for their findings.
As punishment, Plaintiff received 1 year C grade, revocation of good time credits, and
restriction of audio/visual and contact visits. This action was later expunged after the
Administrative Review Board determined that the disciplinary reports issued in this case violated
Department of Corrections’ regulations.
1
Unless otherwise noted, these facts are drawn from the Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc.
36 at 2-3). Because Plaintiff failed to respond to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court
considers these facts undisputed pursuant to Rule 56(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(e).
Page 2 of 5
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 6, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his procedural due process rights and a Fourteenth Amendment violation for a false
disciplinary report. In its Merit Review Order, the Court found that Plaintiff adequately stated a
procedural due process claim against Defendants Hamilton and Joyner, and a Fourteenth
Amendment claim against Defendant Tejada. (Doc. 6).
A prisoner challenging the process he was afforded in a prison disciplinary proceeding
must meet two requirements: (1) he has a liberty or property interest that the state has interfered
with; and, (2) the procedures he was afforded upon that deprivation were constitutionally
deficient. Rowe v. DeBruyn, 17 F.3d 1047, 1053 (7th Cir. 1994). According to the undisputed
facts, Plaintiff was placed into segregation for investigative purposes on March 8, 2012, and
remained so classified until April 5, 2012. Placement into more restrictive conditions, including
segregation, could create a liberty interest if such conditions impose an “atypical and significant
hardship on [the] inmate in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 484 (1995). The Seventh Circuit has held that “inmates have no liberty interest in
avoiding transfer to discretionary segregation-that is, segregation imposed for administrative,
protective, or investigative purposes.” Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 771 (7th Cir. 2008)
(citations omitted). This type of segregation is not “atypical,” but rather “an ordinary incident of
prison life that inmates should expect to experience during their time in prison.” Id. (internal
quotations omitted). Plaintiff’s discretionary segregation status lasted for approximately 30
days, and nothing in the record now before the Court suggests that this classification imposed the
types of hardships that implicate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff also challenged the procedure used during his disciplinary hearing that resulted
in a demotion in status, revocation of good time credit, and restriction of other privileges. As
Illinois has created a statutory right to good time credit, Plaintiff has a liberty interest in
maintaining the credit sufficient enough to trigger the minimum protections of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974); see
Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Good-time credits are statutory
liberty interests once they have been awarded.”); 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-6-3 et seq. (2015)
(Illinois good time credit statute). Thus, before being deprived of that good time credit, Plaintiff
would be “entitled to (1) advance (at least 24 hours before hearing) written notice of the claimed
violation; (2) the opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision maker; (3) the opportunity
to call witnesses and present documentary evidence (when consistent with institutional safety);
and (4) a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the
disciplinary action.” Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing
Superintendent Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) and Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67).
The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff was provided written notice of the pending
charges at least four (4) days in advance of the hearing date. Plaintiff was permitted to identify
witnesses and those witnesses provided a statement in Plaintiff’s defense. There is no indication
in the record that the Adjustment Committee members were not impartial, and the Adjustment
Committee provided Plaintiff with a written statement outlining its decisions and the supporting
reasons. On this record, no reasonable juror could conclude that Plaintiff’s procedural due
process rights were violated.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Page 4 of 5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment is GRANTED [d/e 35]. The clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is terminated, with the parties
to bear their own costs. Plaintiff remains responsible for the $350.00 filing fee.
2) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with this
Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion
for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues the Plaintiff will
present on appeal to assist the court in determining whether the appeal is taken in
good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v Edwards, 164 F.3d 396,
398 (7th Cir. 1999)(an appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a
statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge “can make a
reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith.”); Walker v O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626,
632 (7th Cir. 2000)(providing that a good faith appeal is an appeal that “a reasonable
person could suppose…has some merit” from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff does
choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of
the outcome of the appeal.
Entered this 9th day of April, 2015.
_____________s/Joe B. McDade_____________
JOE BILLY MCDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?