Von Perbandt, et al v. Snyder, et al

Filing 637

ORDER: This matter is before the Court following remand of this case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012); [Doc. 626]. The Court ADOPTS Defendants' proposed remedial plan [Doc. 635] in full as the appropriate grant of equitable relief necessary to correct the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment due process rights of IDOC inmates placed at Tamms and fully articulated by this Court in its July 20, 2010 Order [See Doc. 540]. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 10/15/2012. (mab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROBERT WESTEFER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DONALD SNYDER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 00-162-GPM
Consolidated with:
CIVIL NO. 00-708-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court following remand of this case from the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs
consist of all prisoners in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who have
been or who may be transferred to the closed maximum security prison (“supermax prsion”) at
Tamms Correctional Center (“Tamms”). Defendants are present and former officials and employees
of the IDOC.
Plaintiffs sought relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated their
right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by employing
constitutionally inadequate procedures when assigning IDOC inmates to the supermax prison at
Tamms. On July 20, 2010, this Court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect
to the class-wide procedural due process claims (Doc. 540). This Court held the conditions at
Tamms impose an atypical and significant hardship on inmates, which thus gives rise to a due
process liberty interest in avoiding transfer to the prison (See Doc. 540). The Court found IDOC’s
Page 1 of 5

procedures for making transfer decisions constitutionally deficient and entered an injunction that
articulated the procedures Defendants were to follow in remedying this problem (See Doc. 540).
Defendants appealed this Court’s decision, challenging only the terms of the Court’s
injunction. See Westefer, 682 F.3d at 679. On June 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit held the following, with respect to the scope and specificity of the Court’s
injunction: it exceeded the requirements to remedy the due process violation, it was contrary to the
terms of the Prison Litigation Referm Act (“PLRA”), and it was contrary to Supreme Court
precedent about “remedial flexibility” and “deference to prison administrators[.]” Id. at 681. The
Seventh Circuit vacated this Court’s injunction and remanded this matter with instructions to enter
an injunction consistent with the Opinion remanding this case. Id. at 686.
On July 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 628) and Defendants
promptly filed a response (Doc. 629). On July 20, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’
motion (Doc. 628). The Court subsequently ordered Defendants to submit a proposed remedial plan
that addresses the due process violations of IDOC inmates at Tamms in light of the Seventh Circuit’s
Opinion remanding this case (Doc. 634). After Defendants’ submission of a remedial plan, the
Court allowed Plaintiffs 14 days to file a response (Doc. 634).
Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ remedial plan primarily concern the time frame with
which Defendants must amend the Illinois Administrative Code to reflect Defendants’ proposed
changes (See generally Doc. 636). Plaintiffs, however, lodge one specific objection to Defendants’
proposed plan (Doc. 636). This one specific objection concerns the frequency with which inmates
at Tamms will receive reviews regarding continued placement at Tamms (Doc. 636).

Page 2 of 5

Under Defendants’ proposed remedial plan, inmates “will be provided an annual review of
their continued placement at Tamms.” (Doc. 635, ¶ f). According to Defendants, “[t]he Illinois
Administrative Code currently provides for a file review every 90 days and an annual hearing.”
(Doc. 635, ¶ f)(citing 20 Ill. Admin. Code 505.70). However, Defendants intend “to seek an
amendment to the current rule eliminating quartlery reviews.” (Doc. 635).
Plaintiffs contend that annual paper reviews are insufficient to comply with due process
(Doc. 636). Instead, Plaintiffs suggest that an inmates’ placement at Tamms should be reviewed at
least every 30 days (Doc. 636). Moreover, Plaintiffs suggest that reviews should require an inperson interview with the inmate and include input from mental health staff (Doc. 636). In this vein,
Plaintiffs propose the Court require Defendants “to maintain certain records and provide periodic
reports for monitoring purposes, so that the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel can determine whether the
remedial plan is in fact being implemented.” (Doc. 636, ¶ 8). Plaintiffs suggest procedures for
implementing this monitoring plan (See Doc. 636, ¶ 8(a) - (c).
Plaintiffs’ suggestion for periodic reviews, however, is exactly contrary to the Court of
Appeals Opinion remanding this case. See Westefer, 682 F.3d at 685-86. The Seventh Circuit
clearly stated the “frequency is committed to the administrative discretion of the prison officials[.]”
Id. at 686 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The “periodic review need only be sufficiently
frequent that administrative segregation does not become ‘a pretext for indefinite confinement of
an inmate’ at Tamms.” Id. (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 477, n.9 (1983)).
The Court also cannot adopt Plaintiffs’ suggestion that requires Defendants to submit
proposed amendments to the Illinois Administrative code within 30 days. The Seventh Circuit’s
Opinion remanding this case clearly directed this Court to “do no more than to order IDOC officials”

Page 3 of 5

to craft a remedial plan “in general terms and to verify that the plan they submit satisfies the relevant
constitutional standards.” Westefer, 682 F.3d at 686. Plaintiffs’ suggestion, therefore, is directly
inapposite the Seventh Circuit’s Opinion remanding this case.
In reviewing Defendants’ proposed remedial plan (Doc. 635), the Court finds Defendants
plan is “narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); see also Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683. Under Defendants’ plan, inmates will
be given a transfer review hearing within 15-21 days, depending on the inmates status. (Doc. 635,
¶ a). Inmates will also receive advanced written notice of the hearing that includes the reason for
placement at Tamms, and a statement informing the inmate of the opportunity to ask the transfer
review committee to interview certain persons (Doc. 635). Inmates are given the opportunity to
appear at the transfer review hearing to make statements and present documents (Doc. 635). The
transfer review committee will then issue a final decision within 30 days (Doc. 635). Finally,
inmates will receive an annual review of their continued placement at Tamms (Doc. 635).
Defendants have outlined a plan that provides “informal, nonadversarial due process” while
at the same time allowing for “substantial discretion and flexibility in the hands of the prison
administrators.” Westefer, 682 F.3d at 684-85. And although “only a single prison official is needed
as the neutral reviewer” id. at 685, Defendants have instead proposed an entire committee preside
over an inmate’s transfer review hearing. Finally, allowing for annual placement review is sufficient
because the frequency of these reviews must be left to prison administrators. Id.; Smith v. Shettle,
946 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1991)(“To conclude, however, that the due process clause fixes thirty
days as the minimum frequency of the required review would be to legislate in the name of the

Page 4 of 5

Constitution at an excessive level of detail . . . .”).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Defendants’ proposed remedial plan (Doc. 635) in full as
the appropriate grant of equitable relief necessary to correct the violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment due process rights of IDOC inmates placed at Tamms and fully articulated by this Court
in its July 20, 2010 Order (See Doc. 540). The Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter for the
purpose of enforcement. This injunction shall terminate in two years upon the motion of either party
unless the Court finds that prospective relief is needed to correct an ongoing violation of a federal
right. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A)(i).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 15, 2012

/s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5