Harris v. Ryker
3:11-cv-00134
S.D. Ill.Aug 4, 2011Background
- Plaintiff, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Court conducts screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismisses some claims sua sponte.
- Plaintiff alleges a retaliatory assault, false disciplinary ticket, and biased disciplinary hearing.
- Disciplinary hearing found him guilty of fighting; 30 days of segregation imposed.
- Defendants include Ryker (warden), Bayler, Goins, Stafford; Nielsen named but not pleaded against.
- Court orders service considerations and referral to magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process in disciplinary hearing standards | Plaintiff asserts inadequate Wolff protections and biased process | Hearing complied with Wolff and some evidence standard | Some due process claims survive initial review |
| Effect of denial of witnesses and polygraph | Denied witnesses and no polygraph violated due process | No absolute right to witnesses or polygraph | Denial of witnesses and polygraph not a constitutional violation at this stage |
| False disciplinary ticket and retaliation | Filing false ticket tied to First Amendment retaliation | Retaliation requires more direct evidence of causal motive | Claim survives against Bayler/Ryker; potential retaliation alleged, needs development |
| Dismissal of Nielsen and service issues | Nielsen improperly named/claims not stated | Nielsen dismissed for lack of stated claims | Nielsen dismissed without prejudice; other defendants to be served |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process in prison disciplinary hearings; notice, impartiality, witnesses, and written reasons; some evidence standard)
- Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1988) (procedural protections in Wolff; credible process required)
- Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7th Cir. 1994) (some evidence standard for disciplinary outcomes)
- Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000) (some evidence with factual basis required)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (prison safety interests limit witness procedures)
- Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1989) (polygraph tests not guaranteed; not constitutional right to use)
- Hamilton v. Scott, 762 F. Supp. 794 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (due process not require costly tests; opportunity to be heard)
- Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (U.S. 1977) (First Amendment right to free speech in prison context)
- Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interest in segregation)
- Zinerman v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1990) (due process liberty interest in prison conditions)