Pyles v. Gaetz et al
Filing
210
ORDER granting 184 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 5/23/2016. (jcp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER PYLES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM SPILLER et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13−cv−0299−SCW
ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Procedural History
Plaintiff originally filed this suit on March 21, 2013, bringing claims of unconstitutional
conduct pursuant to § 1983 at Menard Correctional Center. (Doc. 1). The Court then screened the
case pursuant to § 1915A on April 12, 2013. (Doc. 9). Ultimately that order divided the case into
two surviving counts: 1) against Gaetz Rednour, Spiller, Atchison, Harrington, Butler, Taylor,
Randle, Godinez, Bates, Thomas and unidentified lockdown coordinators and staff for acting with
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health and safety by instituting unjustified, prolonged lockdowns
that amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights
and 2) against Sauerwein, Creason, and unidentified others for deliberate indifference to serious risks
to Plaintiff’s mental and physical health due to the lockdown conditions in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of state law. (Doc. 9).
Sauerwein filed a suggestion of death and was dismissed with prejudice on December 23, 2013.
(Doc. 61).
Not content with the dismissal of his other claims, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend on
May 6, 2013. (Doc. 29). He filed a second motion seeking leave to amend the complaint on
1
September 30, 2013. (Doc. 59). On January 23, 2014, the Court permitted the amended Complaint,
but dismissed Plaintiff’s first count of that Complaint on threshold review. (Doc. 68). The
Amended Complaint named Brown, Cowan, Hasemeyer, Lashbrook, Lyerla, Moore, Olson, and
Thomas in place of the unknown defendants in Count 3; and Baig, Greathouse, Whiteside,
Hillerman, Delong and Kowalkowski in place of the unknown defendants in Count 4. (Doc. 68).
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Hillerman on June 26, 2014. (Doc. 125). The Court also
granted Creason’s motion to dismiss the state law claims against her. (Doc. 156). Defendants
Greathouse, Whiteside, Delong, and Baig were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies on December 12, 2014. (Doc. 157).
On August 8, 2014, the Court appointed attorney Laura Robb to represent Plaintiff. (Doc.
136). She was replaced by Sarah Mangelsdorf on September 30, 2015, and Plaintiff has proceeded
with counsel since that time.
(Doc. 180).
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendants Gaetz,
Rednour, and Randle on August 10, 2015. (Doc. 174). Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended
Complaint bring one claim for cruel and unusual punishment against Defendants Atchison,
Harrington, Spiller, Butler, Godinez, Taylor, Bates, Brad Thomas, James Brown, Joseph Cowan,
Chad Hasemeyer, Jacqueline A. Lashbrook, Doug Lyerla, Richard Moore, Paul Olson, William Rees,
and Brian Thomas based on 1) excessive lockdowns; 2) severe overcrowding; and 3) the doublecelling of Plaintiff. (Doc. 175).
On October 9, 2015, Defendants Atchison, Bates, Brown, Butler, Cowan, Godinez,
Harrington, Hasemeyer, Lashbrook, Lyerla, Moore, Olson, Rees, Spiller, Taylor, Brad Thomas, and
Brian Thomas filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 184). After granting Plaintiff an
extension, Plaintiff filed his response on December 10, 2015. (Doc. 189). The Court held hearing
on this matter on March 1, 2016. (Doc. 209). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 184).
2
Factual Background
Defendants submitted an affidavit from Kim Butler, the current warden of Menard, who has
23 years’ experience as an IDOC employee. (Doc. 185-1). She testified that lockdowns may be
instituted for multiple reasons related to the safety and security of Menard, including but not limited
to: assaults on staff, gang-related activity, hidden weapons, and staff shortages. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1).
The staff may also conclude that a security threat exists, which may require investigations and/or
shakedowns. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1). Investigations and shakedowns themselves require controlled
environments, and the shifting of resources, including personnel. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1). Inclement
weather, like a severe snowfall, may also cause a staff shortage, which would also require a lockdown
to maintain a safe and secure environment. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2). Lockdowns may affect the entire
facility or be targeted to specific areas, including cell houses or cell house units. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2).
The length of any given lockdown is determined on a case-by-case basis and is determined day-today. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2). Even if an incident appears isolated, the investigation into the incident may
require a broader lockdown in order to fully investigate the incident. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2).
Lockdowns may be instituted either as Level 1 or Level 4. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2). During a
Level 1 lockdown, inmates are almost completely restricted from leaving their cells. (Doc. 185-1, p.
2). Showers are restricted for the first 7 days of the lockdown. (Doc. 191-1, p. 2). There is no
commissary or yard time, inmate workers do not report to their assignments, and meals are served
directly at the inmates’ cells.
(Doc. 185-1, p. 2).
All visits to the health care unit, except
emergencies, are cancelled, although the health care unit staff will make rounds and inmates
continue to get their medication. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2). Mental health care staff may also make rounds.
(Doc. 185-3, p. 2). Dr. Baig, in particular, tries to make his rounds on lockdown by visiting cell
fronts. (Doc. 185-4, p. 6). Inmates are also prohibited from visiting the law library, although the
law library staff will also make rounds to assist inmates with a looming deadline. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2).
3
Showers are provided once a week. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2). Visits, including legal visits are restricted,
although exceptions may be made. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2).
A Level 4 lockdown differs from a Level 1 lockdown in that most inmate workers are able to
leave their cells to perform their jobs. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2) (Doc. 185-2, p. 7-9). The determination of
which workers will get to leave is determined on a case-by-case basis. (Doc. 185-1, p. 2).
In
Plaintiff’s experience, when the facility is on a Level 4 lockdown, half of the inmates assigned to a
job may be let out one day, with the other half being let out the next. (Doc. 185-2, p. 9). Plaintiff
also testified that the health care unit may run health care passes on Level 4, but not always. (Doc.
185-2, p. 3). Group therapy sessions are frequently cancelled on Level 4 lockdowns. (Doc. 190-6, p.
44). Level 4 lockdowns are inconsistent. (Doc. 185-2, p. 21). Many individual privileges can be
granted or restricted during a lockdown at the discretion of the prison management. (Doc. 185-6
through Doc. 185-17). Medical records submitted by Plaintiff show that he missed approximately
four mental health appointments in 2011 and 2012. (Doc. 190-10) (Doc. 190-11) (Doc. 190-12, p.
12).
From Plaintiff’s perspective, lockdowns are excessive when they happen for isolated
incidents like a fight, a staff assault, or contraband. (Doc. 185-2, p. 4). Plaintiff also characterizes
events such as isolated fights between two inmates from other cell houses, staff assaults, rumors of
potential fights as “non-penologically-related purposes.” (Doc. 191-1, p. 1). He feels that the
lockdowns seem geared towards punishing the prison population as a whole, as opposed to
punishing the individuals who committed the infractions. (Doc. 185-2, p. 4). Plaintiff believes that
lockdowns are also used to avoid paying overtime to employees and to give staff vacation time.
(Doc. 191-1, p. 1). When the lockdown is the result of an investigation, it sometimes continues for
weeks or even months. (Doc. 185-2, p. 4). Plaintiff’s assessment of the reasonableness of the
lockdown is based on his experience as a prisoner.
4
Plaintiff’s cell is typically too small to perform an activity like running in place. (Doc. 185-2,
p. 11). During the time that Plaintiff was double celled, his cell typically had only 12 square feet of
unencumbered floor space, which typically measured 7 feet, 8 inches by 19 inches. (Doc. 191-1, p.
2). The cells in 1 and 3 gallery used to be single cells and were converted to double cells. (Doc. 1852, p. 11). Plaintiff’s ability to exercise in his cell is inhibited by the small cell size. (Doc. 191-1, p. 2).
If an inmate wanted to do push-ups or sit-ups, he could try doing those in his own bunk. (Doc.
185-2, p. 11). If your cellie has the bottom bunk, you may have to clear floor activity with him out
of respect. (Doc. 185-2, p. 11). Two people cannot use the cell floor at the same time, and
occupying the cell floor will cut your cellmate off from the rest of the cell. (Doc. 185-2, p. 12).
Plaintiff has experienced muscle cramping, worsening back and joint pain, atrophied muscles, and
vertigo as a result of the lack of exercise. (Doc. 190-1, p. 3). Inmates are permitted to keep a
correspondence box and a property box in their cell. (Doc. 185-2, p. 13). The property boxes can
be stored under the bunks, but the correspondence boxes are kept on the floor. (Doc. 185-2, p. 13).
Inmates are permitted to have certain items of clothing on the floor. (Doc. 185-2, p. 13). Plaintiff
also typically keeps his TV and his fan on his bunk. (Doc. 185-2, p. 13).
Plaintiff alleges that he has experienced stress, anxiety, headaches, sleeping problems,
including night terrors and insomnia, disassociation, panic attacks, worsening depression, manic
episodes, increase paranoia, lack of concentration and focus, and fear as a result of the small cell
size. (Doc. 190-1, p. 3). Creason has observed Plaintiff with symptoms of anxiety and stress that
are atypical for bipolar disorder. (Doc. 190-3, p. 14). However, she cannot say that prison has made
Plaintiff’s mental health condition worse. (Doc. 190-3, p. 73).
Plaintiff suffers from bi-polar disorder. (Doc. 185-2, p. 14) (Doc. 190-3, p. 12). Creason
testified that when she first began treating Plaintiff he was “a poster child for bipolar disorder.”
(Doc. 185-3, p. 3). However, once they figured out his medication, Plaintiff’s moods leveled out.
5
(Doc. 185-3, p. 3). When he takes his medication, he is very high functioning. (Doc. 185-3, p. 3).
Creason attributes changes in his condition to medication concerns, not cell conditions. (Doc. 1853, p. 4).
Between October 2011 and June 2013, Plaintiff was single-celled due to his medical
condition. (Doc. 185-18) (Doc. 190-1, p. 2) (Doc. 190-8). However, the Court notes that the singlecell order was signed by Melissa Sauerwein, who is deceased, and Creason did not know her
reasoning for recommending Plaintiff be singled-celled. (Doc. 190-3, p. 64). Creason also noted
that Plaintiff was single-celled on 1 and 3 gallery, which was turned into a mental health wing so that
prisoners could more easily attend group therapy sessions. (Doc. 190-3, p. 68-69). Those galleries
were eventually converted into double-cells by adding a bed so that more inmates could be housed
in the mental health area. (Doc. 190-3, p. 69). Plaintiff claims that when he was first double-celled
in June 2013, he was told that it would be temporary. (Doc. 190-1, p. 2). Baig recalls Plaintiff
making complaints about the double celling. (Doc. 190-9, p. 11).
Plaintiff also claims that the conditions at Menard have caused him to suffer anxiety and
insomnia. (Doc. 185-2, p. 14). He feels “like a caged animal.” (Doc. 185-2, p. 15). Plaintiff’s
periods of depression and mania are more intense during a lockdown. (Doc. 185-2, p. 15). These
fluctuations are related to stress. (Doc. 185-2, p. 15). The stress also lengthens Plaintiff’s mania and
depressive periods. (Doc. 185-2, p. 16). The negative effects that Plaintiff suffers due to the small
cell size are also exacerbated by the lack of adequate out of cell time for reasonable movement and
exercise. (Doc. 190-1, p. 3).
Plaintiff also claims that he now suffers from anxiety and insomnia
since coming to prison. (Doc. 190-6, p. 31). When a lockdown permits Plaintiff to work, it helps
his mental condition. (Doc. 185-2, p. 16).
6
Baig does not recall Plaintiff ever having complained to him that the lockdowns were
exacerbating his symptoms. (Doc. 185-4, p. 7). Plaintiff did tell Baig that he was frustrated on June
9, 2012 because they were on lockdown and he did not know why. (Doc. 190-0, p. 59). Baig was
not able to tell Plaintiff why the prison was on lockdown. (Doc. 190-9, p. 60). Baig believes that
security concerns justify lockdowns. (Doc. 190-9, p. 60). He also believes that many facets of
prison life may serve to increase a prisoner’s anxiety. (Doc. 190-9, p. 74).
Plaintiff believes there was an informal policy in 2011 to place the facility on a Level 1
lockdown for one month and a Level 4 lockdown for 1 month after any staff assaults. (Doc. 185-2,
p. 17).
In his opinion, consecutive one month lockdowns served no other purpose than
punishment. (Doc. 185-2, p. 17).
Defendants did not dispute that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies in this case,
and Plaintiff submitted copies of his grievances from the relevant time period. (Doc. 190-2).
The West cell house at Menard went on Level 1 lockdown from January 10, 2011 until
January 26, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 1). Initially, the West cell house was put on lockdown due to a
threat on an inmate’s life provided by a confidential informant. (Doc. 185-9, p. 67). The general
division went on Level 1 lockdown from January 14, 2011 until January 15, and then remained on
Level 4 until January 16, 2011 due to a shakedown by the State-wide tactical team of the West cell
house, which recovered homemade weapons and other contraband. (Doc. 185-5, p. 1) (Doc. 185-9,
p. 41).
The facility was on Level 4 lockdown from February 1, 2011 until February 5, 2011 due to
inclement weather that struck the state on February 2, 2011. (Doc. 185-9, p. 37) (Doc. 185-5, p. 1).
Another Level 1 lockdown was initiated on February 18, 2011 due to a confidential informant’s
report of a planned “hit”; the lockdown was reduced to Level 4 on February 21, 2011 and normal
operations resumed on February 23, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 1).
7
The West cell house went on Level 1 lockdown on March 17, 2011 due to a fight in the
West dining room. (Doc. 185-9, p. 24). It went on Level 4 lockdown on March 18, 2011 and
resumed normal operations on March 19, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 1).
The East cell house went on Level 1 lockdown on April 11, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 1). The
rest of the prison went on a Level 1 lockdown the next day on April 12, 2011 due to a staff assault.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 1) (Doc. 185-8, p 5). The South cell house and North 1 and North 2 cell house went
to Level 4 on April 14, 2011 and resumed normal operations on May 9, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 1).
The East and West cell houses went to Level 4 on April 20, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 1). The East cell
house resumed normal operations on May 17, 2011 and the West cell house resumed operations on
May 26, 2011. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1).
There was a one-day Level 4 lockdown on May 24, 2011 due to a shakedown of the West
cell house. (Doc. 185-8, p. 9). All units returned to normal operations that same day, except for the
West cell house. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1).
The prison went on Level 1 lockdown on June 8, 2011 due to a fight involving five
offenders from North 1 cell house, (Doc. 185-7, p. 38), which was downgraded to a Level 4
lockdown on Gaetz’s authority on June 9, 2011. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1) (Doc. 185-7, p. 42). Normal
operations resumed June 13, 2011. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1). The prison went back on Level 1 lockdown
on June 18, 2011, but all units except the East cell house resumed normal operations the same day.
(Doc. 185-1, p. 1). Two inmates from East cell house began fighting and then turned their
aggression on responding staff. (Doc. 185-7, p. 33). The decision to place the facility on lock down
was made due to the location of the incident, the fact that it was possibly staged, security threat
group concerns, and the fact of a staff assault. (Doc. 185-7, p. 36). The East cell house went on
Level 4 lockdown on June 20, 2011, and resumed normal operations on June 21, 2011. (Doc. 185-1,
p. 1). Another Level 1 lockdown occurred on June 23, 2011 due to a fight involving six inmates,
8
(Doc. 186-7, p. 21) and was downgraded to a Level 4 on June 27, 2011. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1). All units
resumed normal operations on June 28, 2011. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1).
But the prison immediately went back on Level 1 lockdown the next day on June 29, 2011
due to a staff assault that occurred in the law library. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1) (Doc. 185-6, p. 97-98). The
inmate involved was immediately transported to Tamms. (Doc. 185-6, p. 97). All cell houses, with
the exception of the East cell house went to Level 4 lockdown on July 6, 2011. (Doc. 185-1, p. 1).
Gaetz sent an email to Godinez on July 20th assessing the mood of staff and offenders. (Doc. 1856, p. 113). Staff was described as “emotional,” while the inmates were “quiet and pleasant.” (Doc.
185-6, p. 113). Gaetz discussed the summer heart and described efforts to address it on the wards.
(Doc. 185-6, p. 113). Gaetz also reported that intelligence staff believed that it “had a handle” on
recent gang activity. (Doc. 185-6, p. 113). Gaetz recommended that North 1 move to normal
operations on July 21. (Doc. 185-6, p. 113). North 1 resumed normal operations on July 21, 2011.
(Doc. 185-1, p. 1).
The prison briefly went on Level 1 lockdown again on July 22, 2011, but all units with the
exception of North 2 immediately went to Level 4. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). North 2, went to Level 4 on
July 26, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). The other units were all back to normal operation by July 28,
2011, although they rolled back to normal operations. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). There was another Level
1 lockdown on July 28, 2011 due to a staff assault. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2) (Doc. 185-6, p. 58). That
inmate reported that he was angry because staff refused to allow him to go to chow; he was
immediately transferred to Tamms Correctional Center. (Doc 185-6, p. 79). South Uppers and
Lowers, R&C, and North 1 went to Level 4 on August 8, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). East cell house,
West cell house, and North 2 went to Level 4 on August 10, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). Rednour sent
a memorandum to Gaetz indicating that the internal affairs/intelligence unit would monitor phone
calls and mail. (Doc. 185-6, p. 65). Rednour also indicated that the staff would analyze the
9
intelligence gathered from telephone calls, mail, and confidential informants to evaluate lockdown
status for Monday, August 15, 2011. (Doc. 185-6, p. 65). The cell houses began returning to normal
operations on August 24, 2011 and all cell houses were in normal operations by August 26, 2011.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 2). The cell houses spent between 23 and 31 days on lockdown in July 2011. (Doc.
185-11, p. 90). They spent between 22 and 25 days on lockdown in August 2011. (Doc. 185-11, p.
90).
On September 1, 2011, the facility went back on Level 1 lockdown because a staff assault
occurred in the East dining room. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2) (Doc. 185-6, p. 22). All cell houses, with the
exceptions of the East and West cell houses went to Level 4 on September 15, 2011 and resumed
normal operations on September 23, 2011; those cell houses went to Level 4 on September 22, 2011.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 2).
East cell house resumed normal operations on September 26, 2011 and West
cell house resumed normal operations on September 28, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2) (Doc. 185-6, p.
22). The cell houses spent between 22 and 27 days on lockdown in September 2011. (Doc. 185-11,
p. 90).
East cell house went on Level 1 on October 13, 2011 because four inmates were fighting in
the East dining room. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2) (Doc. 185-6, p. 16). That cell house went to Level 4 on
October 14, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). It resumed normal operations on October 18, 2011. (Doc.
185-5, p. 2). The West cell house went on Level 1 lockdown on October 23, 2011 and resumed
normal operations on October 24, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). All units went on Level 1 lockdown on
October 25, 2011 due to inmate assaults in the East yard. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2) (Doc. 185-6, p. 8). East
cell house, West cell house, and portions of North 2 went on Level 4 on October 27, 2011; all other
units went back to normal operations. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). The affected units went off Level 4 on
November 1, 2011. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). The cell houses spent between 2 and 12 days on lockdown
in October 2011; no lockdowns were reported in November 2011. (Doc. 185-11, p. 90).
10
South Uppers and Lowers went on a Level 1 lockdown on December 7, 2011, which was
downgraded to a Level 4 the next morning and terminated in the afternoon. (Doc. 185-5, p. 2). A
piece of cyclone fencing was missing from the inmate commissary and a search of South Uppers and
Lowers was conducted. (Doc. 185-6, p 1). On December 31, 2011, the prison went on Level 1
lockdown; the lockdown ended the next day. (Doc. 185-5 p. 2). South Uppers spent 2 days on
lockdown in December 2011 while South Lowers spent 3. (Doc. 185-11, p. 90).
The prison went on Level 1 lockdown on January 6, 2012 after an inmate altercation in the
West dining room with shots fired. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3) (Doc. 185-12, p. 69). The West even cells
were searched on January 7 and 8. (Doc. 185-12, p. 69). All cell houses except the West cell house
went on Level 4 on January 9, 2012, although East cell house joined the West on Level 1 lockdown
that afternoon because a homemade weapon was found. (Doc. 185-12, p. 69). East cell house was
then subject to cell searches on January 12 and January 13, during which three weapons were found.
(Doc. 185-12, p. 69). West cell house went on Level 4 on January 18, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3).
Normal operations resumed for most cell houses on January 17, 2012.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 3).
However East cell house went on Level 1 on January 10, 2012 and West cell house went back on
Level 1 on January 19, 2012. East cell house did not resume normal operations until January 20,
2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). West cell house went on Level 1 lockdown on January 26, 2012 because 4
to 5 inmates were observed fighting on the East yard. (Doc. 185-12, p. 68). Those inmates were
placed on investigative status in segregation. (Doc. 185-12, p. 68). West cell house went to Level 4
on January 30, 2012 and resumed normal operations on January 31, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). Total
days on lockdown in January 2012 varied from 11 to 19. (Doc. 185-11, p. 90).
On February 7, 2012, the institution went on Level 1 lockdown after a staff assault on the
West cell house door. (Doc. 185-12, p. 47). Intel began interviewing inmates from West cell house
on February 8. (Doc. 185-12, p. 47). Shakedowns took place between February 9 and February 13.
11
(Doc. 185-12, p. 47). Mental health services were provided on February 9, 10, 11, and 15. (Doc.
185-12, p. 47). All units except West cell house went on Level 4 lockdown on February 14, 2012;
West cell house went on Level 4 lockdown on February 16, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). Most units
returned to normal operations on February 16, 2012; West cell house returned to normal operations
on February 17, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). On February 24, 2012, the institution went back on Level
1 lockdown due to multiple inmates fighting on the West yard. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3) (Doc. 185-12, p.
13). East cell house was shaken down with no contraband recovered on February 25, 2012, but two
weapons were recovered from the West cell house. (Doc. 185-12, p. 13). Intel also interviewed
inmates. (Doc. 185-12, p. 13). Shakedowns continued in the South lower, South upper, North 1,
North 2, and common areas between February 27th ad March 2, 2013. (Doc. 185-12, p. 13). All cell
houses except East and West cell house went on Level 4 lockdown on March 5, 2012. (Doc. 185-5,
p 3). They then returned to normal schedule on March 7, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). East and West
cell houses went on Level 4 lockdown on March 8, 2012 and returned to normal schedule on March
13, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). The cell houses spent between 13 and 14 days on lockdown in
February 2012. (Doc. 185-11, p. 90).
On March 19, 2012, all housing units went on Level 1 lockdown because of an inmate-oninmate assault in the West dining room. (Doc. 185-12, p. 11). West cell house was searched on
March 20 and 21. (Doc. 185012, p. 11). The lockdown was downgraded to Level 4 on March 21,
2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). The facility resumed normal operations on March 22, 2012. (Doc. 185-5,
p. 3). West cell house went back on lockdown Level 4 on March 26, 2012 until March 28, 2012 due
to an inmate-on-inmate assault which resulted in an inmate being sent to an outside hospital to
receive sutures. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3) (Doc. 185-12, p. 9). Intel conducted interviews in the West cell
house on March 27, 2012. (Doc. 185-12, p. 9). The cell houses spent between 8 and 15 days on
lockdown in March 2012. (Doc. 185-11, p. 90).
12
North cell house went on Level 1 lockdown from April 6, 2012 until April 8, 2012 due to a
staff assault. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3) (Doc. 185-12, p. 7). The facility as a whole then went on Level 4
lockdown from April 8, 2012 until April 10, 2012; intel conducted facility-wide interviews and the
odd galleries in the East cell house were searched. (Doc. 185-12, p. 5). The facility was locked
down again from April 23, 2012 until April 24, 2012 due to an incident that occurred at the Stateville
Correctional Center, as a precautionary measure. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3) (Doc. 185-12, p. 4). West cell
house was on a Level 4 lockdown from April 26, 2012 until April 30, 2012 due to a one-on-one cell
fight in which a significant injury occurred. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). In April 2012, all cell houses spent 3
days on lockdown, with the exception of West cell house, which spent 6. (Doc. 185-11, p. 90).
On May 3, 2012, West cell house went on a Level 4 lockdown until May 5, 2012 due to two
inmates fighting on the East yard. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3) (Doc. 185-11, p. 143). South Lowers went on
a Level 1 lockdown from May 16, 2012, due to inmate fights throughout the day on May 16. (Doc.
185-11, p. 125). Intel conducted searches of random cells in the South cell houses with no major
contraband found. (Doc. 185-11, p. 125). Intel conducted interviews from May 17 until May 19.
(Doc. 185-11, p. 125).
On May 21, 2012, they went to a Level 4 lockdown before returning to
normal operations on May 23, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3). West cell house went on a Level 1
lockdown on May 24, 2012, but returned to normal operations the next day. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3).
East cell house went on Level 1 lockdown on May 25, 2012 due to a fight between two inmates
from the East cell house in the West yard, where a homemade weapon was discovered. (Doc. 18511, p. 130). Intel interviewed inmates from East cell house on May 26, 2012. (Doc. 185-11, p. 130).
East cell house went to a Level 4 lockdown on May 28, 2012 before resuming normal operations on
May 29, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3).
In total, the cell houses spent between 6 and 10 days on
lockdown in May 2012. (Doc. 185-11, p. 90).
13
On June 3, 2012, the institution went on Level 1 lockdown because two inmates from 8
gallery in the West cell house assaulted Officer Ty Malley; a homemade weapon was also found
following the incident. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3) (Doc. 185-11, p. 95). On June 4, 2012, the statewide
tactical unit came in and shook down the West cell house, finding a total of 13 homemade weapons.
(Doc. 185-11, p. 95). They shook down the East cell house on June 5, 2012 and found a total of 3
homemade weapons. (Doc. 185-11, p. 95). Intel also conducted interviews on those dates and
transferred 19 inmates to other institutions. (Doc. 185-11, p. 95). Intel continued to interview
inmates through June 7. (Doc. 185-11, p. 95). They found two 16 inch paper rods inside two
confiscated typewriters, and collected all the inmates’ extra fans. (Doc 185-11, p. 95).
Most cell
houses went to Level 4 lockdown on a rolling basis between June 19, 2012 and June 21, 201. (Doc.
185-5, p. 3). East and West cell house did not go to Level 4 until June 26, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4).
All houses except East and West returned to normal operations on June 25, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p.
3). East and West cell house returned to normal operations on June 28, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 3).
In June, the cell houses spent between 21 and 24 days on lockdown. (Doc. 185-11, p. 90).
West cell house went on a Level 1 lockdown on July 19, 2012 due to inmates refusing to
come off the West yard. (Doc. 185-11, p. 5). On July 20th and 21st, intel conducted interviews.
(Doc. 185-11, p. 5).
The West cell house went to Level 4 lockdown on July 24, 2012. (Doc. 185-5,
p. 4). East cell house went on Level 1 lockdown on July 20, 2012 based on information discovered
in the intel interviews. (Doc. 185-11, p. 5). East cell house went to Level 4 on July 24, 2012. (Doc.
185-5, p. 4). All cell houses went on Level 1 lockdown on July 27, 2012 due to a tactical operation,
(Doc. 185-11, p. 5). The North and South cell houses were taken to Level 4 the same day. (Doc.
185-5, p. 4). Menard intel conducted further inmate interviews with inmates from the West cell
house on July 30, 2012. (Doc. 185-11, p. 5). East and West cell house did not go to Level 4 until
August 10, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The North and South cell house resumed normal operations
14
on August 6, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). On August 11, 2012, intel conducted further interviews with
inmates from North 1 cell house. (Doc. 185-11, p. 6).
North 1 then went on a Level 4 on August 10, 2012 and resumed normal operations on
August 15, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The rest of the prison went on Level 4 lockdown on August
12, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The guards searched the odd galleries of the East cell as well as
various cells in the North one cell house on August 14, 2012; 3 homemade weapons, 3 blanks, and
other contraband were discovered. (Doc. 185-11, p. 6).
All units except the East and West cell
houses returned to normal operations on August 15, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). On August 20, 2012,
the prison went back on Level 1 lockdown in order to conduct a statewide tactical unit shake down
of the West cell house and East odd galleries. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4) (Doc. 185-11, p. 6). As a result of
this search, 10 homemade weapons were found. (Doc. 185-11, p. 6).
East and West cell houses
went to Level 4 lockdown on August 22 and August 23, respectively. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The North
and South cell houses returned to normal operations on August 21, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). East
cell house returned to normal operations on August 23, 2012, and West cell house returned to
normal operations on August 27, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4).
Another Level 1 lockdown was instituted on August 27, 2012 due to a staff assault on the
East yard gate. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4) (Doc. 185-10, p. 120). On August 28, 2012, intel conducted
interviews of West cell house inmates, and searched 76 cells, along with the East yard, West yard and
multi-purpose building, but found no major contraband. (Doc. 185-10, p. 120). The following day,
intel interviewed 75 inmates from West cell house, and moved inmates in protective custody from
the East cell house to the North 1 cell house. (Doc. 185-10, p. 120). Intel conducted another call
out on August 30, 2012. (Doc. 185-10, p. 120). Seventy-eight inmates were interviewed from West
cell house on August 31, 2012. (Doc. 185-10, p. 120). The North cell house went to Level 4 on
September 6, 2012 and normal operations on September 11, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The South
15
cell house went to Level 4 on September 11, 2012 and normal operations on September 13, 2102.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 4). East cell house was taken to Level 4 on September 18, 2012 and returned to
normal operations one week later. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). Between September 17, 2012 and September
20, 2012, the library was shaken down and 20 pieces of metal were found hidden there. (Doc. 18510, p. 121). West cell house did not go to Level 4 until September 25, 2012 and returned to normal
operations only on October 2, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4).
On October 5, 2012, the East cell house went on Level 1 lockdown after an inmate
altercation on the East yard; the rest of the prison joined them the next day after a staff assault in
the South dining room. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4) (Doc. 185-10, p. 101). Inmates were interviewed in
connection with the yard altercation on October 6, 2012. (Doc. 185-10, p. 101). On October 9,
2012, the North 1 5 & 7 galleries were shook down; no contraband was found. (Doc. 185-10, p.
101). The South and West cell houses went to Level 4 on October 10, 2012 and general operations
on October 11, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). East and North cell houses went to Level 4 on October
11, 2012 and normal operations on October 16, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The West cell house went
on Level 1 lockdown on October 19, 2012 after an inmate altercation in the West dining room,
(Doc. 185-10, p. 98), and resumed normal operations on October 23, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). Intel
interviewed inmates from the West cell house on October 20, 2012. (Doc. 185-10, p. 98). East cell
house went on Level 4 lockdown on October 22, 2102. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The entire prison went
on Level 1 lockdown on October 26, 2012 due to a staff assault on Front Street. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4)
(Doc. 185-10, p. 33). On October 29, 2012, the South Uppers 5 and 7 galleries were shaken down
with no contraband found. (Doc. 185-10, p. 33). The South upper 6 and 8 galleries were shaken
down on October 30, 2012, also with no major contraband found. (Doc. 185-10, p. 33). South
Lowers 1 and 3 galleries were shaken down on November 1, and 2 and 4 galleries were shaken down
on November 2, 2012. (Doc. 185-10, p, 33). Again, no contraband was found. (Doc. 185-10, p.
16
33). North 1 went to Level 4 on November 5, 2012 and normal operations on November 13, 2012.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 4). Intelligence conducted interviews with 35 inmates on November 8, 2012, and
randomly shook down 19 cells, with no contraband found. (Doc. 185-10, p. 33). North 2, South
Lowers, and the East and West cell house went to Level 4 on November 13, 2012 and resumed
normal operations on November 20, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). South Lowers went on Level 4 on
November 20, 2012 and resumed normal operations one week later. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4).
The prison went back on a Level 1 lockdown on December 9, 2012 due to a disturbance
involving 12 inmates in the West dining room. (Doc. 185-10, p. 23). On December 10, 2012, intel
conducted a call out consisting of 72 interviews, and 75 West cell house cells were shaken down
with no major contraband found. (Doc. 185-10, p. 23). All cell houses except West went to Level 4
on December 11, 2012 and resumed normal operations on December 12, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4).
Menard intelligence interviewed 7 more inmates on December 11, 2012 and 62 inmates on
December 12, 2012. (Doc. 185-10, p. 23). John Howard also visited the institution on December
12. (Doc. 185-10, p. 23). West cell house was placed on Level 4 lockdown at 3:00 pm on December
13. (Doc. 185-10, p. 10). On December 14 the entire prison went back on Level 1 lockdown after a
staff assault outside the North 2 dining room. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4) (Doc. 185-10, p. 1). On December
15, 2012, the North 2 odd side shakedown was completed with only nuisance contraband found.
(Doc. 185-10, p. 1). With the exception of North 2, all cell houses went to Level 4 on December 20,
2012 and to normal operations on December 24, 2012; North 2 went to Level 4 on December 24,
2012, and to normal operations on December 27, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The entire prison went
back on Level 4 lockdown from December 26, 2012 to December 27, 2012 due to inclement
weather and call-ins. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4) (Doc. 185-10, p. 1). The prison went back on Level 4
lockdown from December 29, 2012 until December 30, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4). The prison was
also on Level 1 lockdown from December 31, 2012 until January 1, 2012. (Doc. 185-5, p. 4).
17
The prison went on Level 1 lockdown on January 19, 2013 due to a staff assault. (Doc. 1855, p. 5) (Doc. 185-17, p. 44). Intel began conducting call outs on January 20. (Doc. 185-17, p. 44).
All cell houses except East cell house went on Level 4 lockdown on January 22, 2013 and returned
to normal operations on January 23, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5). East cell house went on Level 4 on
January 23, 2013 and normal operations on January 24. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5). On January 31, 2013, the
whole prison went on Level 1 lockdown until February 4, 2013 due to a possible inmate on inmate
homicide. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5) (Doc. 185-17, p. 36).
The facility went back on Level 1 lockdown on February 5. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5). A group of
approximately nine inmates attacked two guards during chapel service, causing serious injury to one
of them. (Doc. 185-13, p. 83-84). Intel searched 57 cells and interviewed 68 inmates the next day,
finding only minor contraband. (Doc. 185-13, p. 83). Intel conducted more interviews on February
7, 12, 13. (Doc. 184-13, p. 83). Strip searches of inmate workers and cell shakedowns were also
conducted during this time, but only minor contraband was recovered. (Doc. 184-13 p. 83). On
February 13, Harrington, Jones, Butler, Brown, Lyerla, and Hassenmeyer toured the yards, with an
eye towards dividing them to ensure better inmate management. (Doc. 184-13 p. 82). A homemade
weapon was discovered in the East cell house on February 15. (Doc. 185-13, p. 82). Upper Level
staff continued to tour various areas of the institution during this time while intel continued
investigating. (Doc. 185-13, p. 82). The Weapons Task Force was also active in searching and
removing miscellaneous metal from the institution. (Doc. 185-13 p. 81-82). North 1 went to Level
4 on February 26, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5). On February 27, a lieutenant meeting was held in which
the dining room practices when coming off lockdown were discussed. (Doc. 185-13, p. 80).
North 1 was on Level 4 lockdown on March 1, 2013; all other units continued on Level 1.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 5). A homemade weapon was discovered in West house during shower lines on
March 4. (Doc. 185-13, p. 80). In addition to North 1, all other units went to Level 4 on March 5,
18
2013, except West cell house, where the weapon was discovered. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5) (Doc 185-13, p.
80). Cell searches, inmate interviews, and Weapons Task Force activities continued. (Doc. 185-13,
p. 80). Additional weapons were discovered on the East and West yards on March 8. (Doc. 185-13,
p. 80). New security cages were added to the dining rooms. (Doc. 185-13, p. 79).
East cell house
went to Level 1 on March 14, 2013 per Harrington. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5) (Doc. 185-13, p. 79). A
tactical operation was also conducted in the West cell house that day, with all cells searched and 7
weapons recovered. (Doc. 185-13, p. 79). Intel continued its various investigative activities during
this time. (Doc. 185-13, p. 79). All other units besides East and West went back to normal
operations on March 21, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5). North 1 and 2, and South Uppers and Lowers
went on Level 4 lockdown on March 23, 2013. (Doc. 185-13, p. 78). The rest of the institution
went on Level 4 lockdown on March 25. (Doc 185-13, p. 78). South cell house was searched on
March 26 by the tactical team and 3 homemade weapons were recovered. (Doc. 185-13, p. 78).
North 2 went to Level 1 lockdown on March 27. (Doc. 185-13, p. 78). Intel activities continued.
(Doc. 185-13, p. 78). Auditors arrived to tour the facility on April 1. (Doc. 185-13., p. 78). North 1
cell house and R&C resumed normal operations on April 3, while the rest of the institution
remained on Level 4. (Doc. 185-13, p. 78) South Uppers and Lowers resumed normal operations
on April 10, 2013. (Doc. 185-13, p. 77). North 2 resumed normal operations on April 16. (Doc.
185-13, p. 77). East cell house resumed normal operations on April 18, leaving only West on Level
4. (Doc. 185-13, p. 77). North 2 was also placed on Level 4 on April 23 due to a fight on the yard.
(Doc 185-13, p. 76). West cell house eventually went on a modified schedule that permitted some
galleries to eat out. (Doc. 185-13, p. 76, 113).
On May 3, 2013, East cell house went on a Level 1 lockdown due to an incident. (Doc. 1855, p. 5) (Doc. 185-13, p. 68). A tactical search was conducted, and several items confiscated, which
provided the justification for continuing the lockdown in the East cell house and putting the rest of
19
the prison on Level 4. (Doc. 185-13, p. 68). All cell houses except East returned to normal
operations on May 5, but East remained on Level 1 and intel continued to conduct cell searches,
inmate interviews and drug tests. (Doc. 185-13, p. 68).
The lockdown was downgraded to Level 4
on May 7, 2013 and normal operations resumed in the East cell house on May 8, 2013. (Doc. 185-5,
p. 5).
All cell houses went on Level 4 lockdown for one day on May 20, 2013 because of a tactical
operation authorized by Deputy Director Ty J. Bates. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5) (Doc. 185-13, p. 67). The
prison went on Level 1 lockdown on May 27, 2013 due to a 3 on 1 inmate on inmate assault that
resulted in one inmate being hospitalized. (Doc. 185-13, p. 41). Intel conducted interviews and cell
shakedowns into June in response to this incident. (Doc. 185-13, p. 40-41). On May 29, 2013, East
cell house, South and North cell house, and R&C went on Level 4 lockdown; West cell house went
on Level 4 on May 30. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5). East cell house, South cell house, North cell house, and
R&C resumed normal operations on May 30, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5).
On June 3, 2013, all cell houses went on Level 4 due to flooding; normal operations resumed
June 11, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5). Cell shakedowns were also conducted during this time as part of
a continuing response to the May incident. (Doc. 185-13, p. 40). West cell house went on Level 1
lockdown on June 24, 2013 due to an inmate on inmate assault. (Doc. 185-13, p. 34). It went to
Level 4 lockdown on June 25, 2013 and resumed normal operations on June 26, 2013. (Doc. 185-5,
p. 5). During that time, 119 cadets and 23 tactical staff searched the West cell house and found 1
homemade weapon, 1 razor blade, and miscellaneous security threat group material. (Doc. 185-13,
p. 33). Intel also conducted interviews with 10 inmates. (Doc. 185-13, p. 37). On June 25, 2013,
East cell house, South cell house, North cell house, and R&C went on Level 4 lockdown until the
following day because the training academy was conducting shakedowns. (Doc. 185-5, p. 5) (Doc.
185-13, p. 35).
20
On August 14, 2013, all divisions went on Level 1 lockdown due to as staff assault until
August 16, 2013, when they transitioned to Level 4 lockdown. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6) (Doc. 185-13, p.
23). Intel conducted inmate interviews and cell searches between August 15 and August 19. (Doc.
185-13, p. 23). Normal operations resumed on August 20, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6). North 2 was
placed on Level 1, lockdown on August 27, 2013 due to inmates fighting on segregation yard and
noon feeds. (Doc. 185-13, p. 20). Normal operations resumed on August 29, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p.
6). West cell house went on a Level 1 lockdown on August 28, 2013 at 7 pm for a shakedown.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 6). Intel conducted 7 inmate interviews and searched 18 cells on the 28th. (Doc.
185-13, p. 20). West cell house then went to Level 4 on August 29, 2013 for inmate related reasons.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 6). Normal operations resumed on August 30, 2013. (Doc. 185-6, p. 6).
On September 5, 2013, West cell house went on Level 1 lockdown until September 6 due to
an inmate altercation in the East dining room. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6) (Doc. 185-13, p. 18). South cell
house went on Level 1 lockdown on September 10, 2013 in order to conduct a cadet shakedown.
(Doc. 185-5, p. 6) (Doc. 185-13, p. 17). All other cell houses went on Level 4 lockdown the same
day for administrative reasons per Deputy Director Stock. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6) (Doc. 185-13, p. 15).
All units resumed normal operations on September 11, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6).
West cell house went on Level 4 lockdown for one day on October 9, 2013 pursuant to
Deputy Director Gaetz’s orders. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6) (Doc. 185-13, p. 14). East cell house was on
Level 1 lockdown from October 18, 2013 due to a fight involving three inmates in the East dining
room. (Doc. 185-13, p. 7). The lockdown lasted until October 21, 2013, when normal operations
resumed because the investigation had revealed that the fight was a result of one inmate making a
racially-charged comment to another. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6) (Doc. 185-13, p. 9).
All units went on Level 4 lockdown from November 7 through the 8th in order to conduct
shakedowns. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6) (Doc. 185-13, p. 6).
21
On December 6, 2013, all units went on a Level 4 lockdown until December 7 due to
inclement weather. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6). West cell house went on Level 1 lockdown on December 23,
2013 due to three inmates fighting on 8 gallery after returning from chow. (Doc. 185-13, p. 1).
West cell house went to Level 4 lockdown on December 24, 2013; and resumed normal operations
on December 25, 2013. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6). All units went on Level 4 lockdown on New Year’s Eve
for administrative purposes. (Doc. 185-5, p. 6). Normal operations resumed January 1, 2014. (Doc.
185-5, p. 6).
Legal Standards
1. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper only if the admissible evidence considered as a whole shows
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade v. Multiut Corp., 648 F.3d 506, 517 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of
demonstrating—based on the pleadings, affidavits and/or information obtained via discovery—the
lack of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In
determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Court must view the record in a light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986).
If a party fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact, courts may “grant
summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials — including the facts considered
undisputed — show that the movant is entitled to it.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). A mere scintilla of
evidence supporting the non-movant's position is insufficient; a party will successfully oppose
summary judgment only when it presents definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. See also Steen v. Myers, 486 F.3d 1017, 1022 (7th Cir. 2007)
22
(“[S]ummary judgment is . . . the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must
show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the
events.”) (internal citations omitted). There is “no genuine issue of material fact when no
reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party.” Van Antwerp v. City of Peoria, 627
F.3d 295, 297 (7th Cir. 2010); accord Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (finding material fact is
genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party).
At summary judgment, the Court’s role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence, to
judge witness credibility, or to determine the truth of the matter, but rather to determine whether a
genuine issue of triable fact exists. Nat’l Athletic Sportswear, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 528
F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2008).
2. Conditions of Confinement
In a conditions of confinement case, the plaintiff must prove both the objective factor—that
he suffered a sufficiently serious deprivation—and the subjective factor—that the defendant
subjectively acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s condition of confinement—to prove
that an Eighth Amendment constitutional violation occurred. Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894
(7th Cir. 2008); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993). With respect to the objective
factor, the plaintiff is required to show scientific and statistical proof of the potential harm and the
likelihood that such injury to health will actually be caused by the condition of confinement. Id. at
36. Further, a court is required to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner
complains of to be “so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone
unwilling to such a risk.” Id. With respect to the subjective factor, the defendant must have known
of the substantial risk of serious harm but disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable
measures to address it. Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2008), citing Farmer v.
23
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). It is not enough for the inmate to show that the official acted
negligently or that he or she should have known about the risk. Id. Instead, the inmate must show
that the official received information from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk
existed, and that the official actually drew the inference. Id.
In determining whether a deprivation is “serious,” a court must consult the “evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452
U.S. 337, 346. Prisons need not be comfortable, but they must provide “the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities.” Id. at 347. Previously, the Seventh Circuit has found that denial of
exercise in a segregation or solitary confinement scenario could be cruel and unusual. Pearson v.
Ramos, 237 F.3d 881, 884 (7th Cir. 2001). They also specifically held that the lockdown of a
segregated inmate for a six month period, during which the inmate’s time outside of his cell was
severely limited, constituted an objectively serious condition. Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679,
684 (7th Cir. 2001). The Delaney Court also recognized that legitimate penological reasons could
justify the restriction. Id. The proper guidepost is the “norm of proportionality,” which requires
the Court to weigh the duration of the lockdown against the nature of the infraction that caused it.
Pearson, 237 F.3d at 885; Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 2013);
Analysis
Plaintiff alleges that the lockdowns are unconstitutional because they occurred for flimsy
reasons or no reasons at all. See Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 2013). However,
Plaintiff’s evidence is not sufficient to show that the lockdowns violated the norm of
proportionality; even taking the lockdowns in combination with Plaintiff’s other claims. First of all,
as to Plaintiff’s claim that he was improperly double-celled, the Court notes that the double celling is
alleged to have begun in June 2013, near the end of the period at issue in this litigation. Although
Plaintiff has argued that the double celling is inappropriate because a mental health professional
24
determined single-celling was necessary to his mental health, the facts submitted by the Plaintiff do
not provide evidence for this position. The mental health professional that authorized the singlecelling has died, and the current mental health staff is not aware of the reasons why she
recommended single-celling. Plaintiff’s own evidence suggests that mental health attempted to place
all mental health inmates on certain galleries to make it easier for them to attend group sessions.
There was evidence that this location was originally made up of single cells but then modified so
double-celling was possible. A reasonable inference is that the reason Plaintiff was originally
recommended for single-celling was so he could be moved to the appropriate gallery. There is no
evidence that the single-celling was meant to alleviate Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms. In light of
the lack of evidence on that point, there is no evidence that Defendants were subjectively indifferent
to Plaintiff’s need for a single-cell.
Plaintiff’s largest contention is that lockdowns were not held for penological purposes.
Plaintiff testified that it was his subjective experience that lockdowns were used to punish the entire
institution for when individual inmates acted out. In various pleadings, Plaintiff has alleged that
lockdowns were used for the convenience of the staff, to give staff paid time off and holidays, and
that lockdowns were reflexively enforced for two months at a time when staff was involved,
regardless of the circumstances. The Court has exhaustively reviewed the lockdown reports and
finds no support for Plaintiff’s contentions. The Court did not find that the entire prison was
placed on lockdown for every incident. On the contrary, the lockdown reports show that the
cellhouses were subject to individual determinations and that frequently different cellhouses would
be placed on lockdown for shorter period of time or moved to Level 4 lockdown prior to others. It
was very difficult to find any patterns in the lockdown progressions, suggesting that the staff was
making individual determinations about what cell houses needed during particular security events.
25
Additionally, although Plaintiff claimed that the lockdowns were a response to staffing
levels, it appears that the majority of the lockdowns occurred after incidents of violence. The Court
is not in a position to determine that the length and timing of those lockdowns were not
penologicaly justified. For example, Plaintiff alleges that the lockdown in response to an incident in
the Menard Chapel on February 5, 2013 was excessive because the facility was on lockdown for
several months, making the response the longest lockdown in the relevant time period. Plaintiff’s
position ignores the fact that the February 5th incident was a coordinated attack by nine members of
the La Raza gang1 against two guards that occurred less than three weeks after another assault on
staff and possible inmate-on-inmate homicide. This was not an arbitrary exercise of power; it was a
response to one of the worst incidents of violence during the relevant time period. Also, the
evidence submitted by the prison shows that an extensive investigation was conducted in the wake
of the assault that involved interviewing hundreds of inmates and conducting cell shakedowns of all
cell houses. Locking inmates down during an investigation makes sense for a number of reasons.
For one, it helps preserve the integrity of the investigation by minimizing contact between inmate
witnesses during the investigation. It also served to protect the inmate witnesses being interviewed.
Additionally, some of these shakedowns revealed hidden weapons, which could have been
interpreted as added threats to the safety and security of the institution. The administration also
discussed and made changes to the physical structure of Menard during this time in order to
improve safety. Other than Plaintiff’s own conjecture, there is nothing in the record that this
lockdown was a pretense for giving staff paid time off or that it was purposely extended in order to
punish the entire institution.
Plaintiff also complained that Menard had a policy of placing the entire institution on Level
1 lockdown for 1 month after a staff assault, followed by 1 month on Level 4, regardless of the
The Court is aware of this incident in part because it is the subject of another lawsuit, No. 13-cv-1191-SCW, currently
pending, where the parties have submitted significant factual briefing on the events at issue.
1
26
other factors. That is patently untrue. For example, there was a Level 1 lockdown for a staff assault
on April 12, 2011, but the South and North cell houses went to Level 4 a mere two days later and
resumed normal operations less than a month after the assault.
Another Level 1 lockdown that
occurred in 2012 due to a staff assault lasted two days, and the subsequent Level 4 lockdown lasted a
mere two days as well. A lockdown that occurred on August 14, 2013 due to a staff assault followed
the same pattern. All divisions were on Level 1 lockdown for a two day period and normal
operations resumed within the week. The lockdown that comes closest to matching Plaintiff’s
pattern is the February 5, 2013 lockdown, which as discussed above, was justified by the severe
circumstances surrounding that event. As Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of his alternate
theories on why the lockdowns occurred, the Court cannot conclude that the lockdowns were
disproportional to the circumstances to which they were a response.
Plaintiff has also not submitted sufficient evidence that Defendants were subjectively aware
of the harm that he was alleging, and that they were deliberately indifferent to the risk of such harm.
The lockdown reports repeatedly provide legitimate penological reasons for the lockdowns. The
most frequently used reasons for lockdowns include violence and investigations conducted by intel
for the safety and security of the institution. The individual Defendants were entitled to rely on
those reports that there was a legitimate penologcial reason for the lockdowns. Plaintiff submitted
evidence that he grieved the frequent lockdowns. But the administrators are still entitled to weigh
the reasons for the lockdown against Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. It is also notable that
Plaintiff’s mental health treaters did not think that variations in his condition were due to the
frequent lockdowns and did not recall that Plaintiff complained to them that the lockdowns were
making him worse.
While that fact is more relevant to the ultimate issue of damages, an
administrator who was trying to balance the lockdowns against Plaintiff’s claims of harm to his
mental health would be entitled to defer to the mental health care providers on what effect the
27
lockdowns were having on Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidence from which a
reasonable fact finder could conclude that the Defendants were subjectively indifferent.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment is GRANTED in Defendants’ favor. (Doc.
184). As this disposes of all the claims in this case, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter
judgment in Defendants’ favor and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
Stephen C. Williams
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: May 23, 2016
28
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?