Corky Terry v. Donald Stolworthy
669 F. App'x 803
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Corky Terry, an Illinois prisoner, was transferred from general population to administrative detention at Pontiac Correctional Center on July 6, 2014.
- Terry alleges the transfer occurred without prior notice, hearing, or explanation; he remained in 24-hour isolation and lost access to the main library.
- About 60 days after transfer he received a written notice stating the detention rationale (based on unnamed confiscated documents alleging attempted infiltration for a gang), and a hearing occurred on his 66th day.
- Administrative reviews were held roughly every 90 days thereafter (some with Terry present, some without); he was allowed to submit written challenges and received the same rationale before each review.
- After screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A the district court dismissed Terry’s amended § 1983 complaint for failure to state a due-process claim; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Terry received the process due even if a liberty interest existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Terry have a protected liberty interest in avoiding administrative detention? | Terry: his prolonged isolation and potential indefinite detention are atypical and significant, implicating liberty interests. | Defendants: placement did not impose atypical or significant hardship, so no liberty interest. | Court assumed for argument that a liberty interest could exist but resolved case on process grounds. |
| If a liberty interest exists, was Terry denied due process in the transfer/review procedures? | Terry: transfer without prior notice or hearing, no access to underlying evidence, and an initial review after 66 days was unreasonably delayed. | Defendants: prison provided sufficient process—notice of reasons before reviews, opportunity to be present or submit written challenges, and periodic reviews every ~90 days. | Court held the procedures satisfied due process; no constitutional violation pleaded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (prisoner liberty interests are diminished; transfer within state prison system usually not a liberty violation)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest exists only where confinement imposes atypical and significant hardship)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (indefinite harsh isolation plus loss of parole eligibility can create a liberty interest requiring process)
- Marion v. Columbia Corr. Inst., 559 F.3d 693 (240 days in segregation may implicate a liberty interest)
- Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (due process for segregation requires informal, nonadversary procedures: notice, opportunity to present views, and periodic review)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (informal procedures suffice for certain prison classification decisions)
- Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (plaintiff must allege that the deprivation would not have occurred if proper process had been provided to state a claim for nominal damages)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (nominal damages available for deprivation of constitutional rights even without provable actual harm)
- Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888 (no due-process violation where plaintiff does not allege a dispute that more process would have resolved)
- Towers v. City of Chicago, 173 F.3d 619 (plaintiff must allege contested facts showing process would have changed outcome)
- Olson v. Bemis Co., 800 F.3d 296 (documents appended to a complaint may be treated as part of the complaint if not contested)