Gregory Turley v. Dave Rednour, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13571

Turley, a life-sentenced inmate at Menard Correctional Center, was subjected to multiple lockdowns from Jan 7, 2008, to Oct 4, 2010; 25 lockdowns occurred, with the longest continuous period 81 days and total lockdown days 534, over half of the period.
Lockdowns allegedly served non-penologically-related purposes (e.g., minor incidents elsewhere, holidays) and caused lack of inmate exercise and various health issues.
Turley alleged a conspiracy among prison officials and union employees to create staff shortages and withhold overtime, thereby justifying lockdowns and vociferously punishing inmates; he also claimed his $10 monthly idle-pay stipend was withheld during lockdowns without due process.
Turley pursued prison grievances, including a February 2009 grievance that progressed to a Director’s final decision, and other grievances that were denied or unanswered; the district court dismissed the complaint at screening under § 1915A.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held Turley’s Eighth Amendment claim plausibly survived, but his Due Process claim failed; the conspiracy claim was considered superfluous since all defendants were state actors; the court partially reversed the district court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies for continuing lockdowns	Turley exhausted via a February 2009 grievance	Turley did not exhaust all remedies due to two specific incidents and unanswered later grievances	Exhaustion satisfied; one grievance suffices for continuing policy challenges
Eighth Amendment plausibility of lockdowns	Continued, pattern-based lockdowns deprived him of exercise and caused injuries	No single lockdown exceeded 90 days and no deliberate indifference shown	Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim plausible
Due Process viability of withholding stipend during lockdowns	Turley had a property interest in unassigned pay and due process was due	State post-deprivation remedy via Illinois Court of Claims suffices; no pre- deprivation process required	Due Process claim failed; post-deprivation remedy adequate
Conspiracy claim viability	There was a conspiratorial agreement among state actors and union employees	All named defendants are state actors; §1985(3) claim adds nothing	Conspiracy claim superfluous; not necessary to decide separately

Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (ironclad rule for yard-denial duration; norm of proportionality governs longer lockdowns)
Heard v. Sheahan, 253 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2001) (continuing violation doctrine in such contexts)
Morgan, National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violation vs. continuing injury; applying continuing-violation doctrine to multiple acts)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion requirement for prison grievances; proper procedural rules)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; burden on defendants)