Durley v. Tritt, 2:21-cv-00628

Background

Plaintiff Timothy Durley, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, sued three prison officials (Kyle Tritt, Robert Rymarkiewicz, Joseph Falke) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging they permanently extended a “back-of-cell” restriction without a hearing.
The restriction required Durley to kneel at the back of his cell, hands on the wall, when receiving food, medication, mail or supplies; it was imposed from November 16, 2020 through at least January 14, 2021.
Durley was already in administrative confinement; he alleges the restriction exceeded the 30‑day policy limit and that he was entitled to a hearing before extension. He seeks damages and an injunction removing the restriction.
The court granted Durley leave to proceed IFP and assessed the initial partial fee; it screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, denied the preliminary injunction as moot/meritless, and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether permanently extending the back-of-cell restriction without a hearing violated due process (Fourteenth Amendment)	Durley: extension beyond 30 days required a hearing to determine "good cause"; he was denied that procedure	Defendants: restriction was a security measure and did not implicate a protected liberty interest warranting additional process	Held: No protected liberty interest—restriction not an "atypical and significant hardship" given administrative confinement and limited, intermittent nature; no due process violation
Whether the back-of-cell restriction violated the Eighth Amendment	Durley: kneeling requirement exacerbates his medical issues and is cruel or excessive	Defendants: restriction does not deprive essential needs or create substantial risk of serious harm; it is a security measure	Held: Eighth Amendment claim fails—plaintiff did not plead objective substantial risk of serious harm or deliberate indifference
Whether alleged violations of Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) policies give rise to § 1983 claims	Durley: prison policy limited restriction to 30 days and required a hearing for extensions	Defendants: compliance with policy not a constitutional requirement; safety concerns control	Held: Violations of internal policies are not independently actionable under § 1983 absent a constitutional violation
Whether a preliminary injunction should issue to remove the restriction	Durley: injunction needed because the restriction causes knee/back pain and he lacked a hearing	Defendants: injunction is unwarranted because no constitutional violation and defendants have security interests	Held: Motion denied as moot (case dismissed) and, on the merits, plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or inadequacy of legal remedies

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard guidance)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest requires atypical and significant hardship)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (conditions-of-confinement baseline for Eighth Amendment)
Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2002) (small, intermittent restrictions not atypical)
Paige v. Hudson, 341 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2003) (Sandin analysis requires examining duration and conditions)
Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2017) (due process requires protected interest)
Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2017) (screening standard under § 1915A and liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015) (treatment of pro se complaints)
Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2017) (§ 1983 does not enforce internal prison policies)