Marion v. Radtke
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11054
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Marion, an inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution, was placed in DS-1, the prison's most restrictive segregation, after misconduct in DS-2.
- DS-1 duration was 240 days, and Marion challenged the procedures used to find him in violation of prison rules.
- The district court initially considered whether 240 days in DS-1 violated liberty interests under Sandin and Wilkinson, citing Meachum.
- This court previously held that confinement in more onerous conditions could implicate liberty interests and remanded for a comparison with a high-security prison’s conditions.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants after Marion provided no evidence of differing DS-1 conditions from general high-security prison conditions.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the burden of production lies with Marion to show deprivation of liberty, not on the state to prove no deprivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 240 days in DS-1 deprivation implicate liberty? | Marion contends DS-1 worsened liberty beyond conviction effects. | DS-1 conditions are not liberty deprivation under Sandin; no due-process requirement absent comparison. | Yes, potential liberty deprivation may exist; requires comparative showing. |
| Who bears burden of production on liberty issue? | State must supply comparison evidence of DS-1 vs high-security prison conditions. | Burden shifts to plaintiff to produce evidence after custodians raise non-liberty argument. | Burden of production rests with Marion; failure to produce evidence supports summary judgment. |
| Was summary judgment proper after remand? | Marion should have had opportunity to present DS-1 condition evidence on remand. | No evidence on record differentiating DS-1 from general conditions; summary judgment appropriate. | Affirmed summary judgment; Marion failed to produce evidence of liberty deprivation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interest depends on conditions of confinement)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (due process in prison living conditions; supermax comparison not appropriate)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1976) (statutory/constitutional limits on transfer of inmates without hearing)
- Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2005) (principles for evaluating prison-condition liberty interests)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden of production; movant need not negate evidence with own proof)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext burden-shifting framework in civil cases)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (pretext framework; employer must articulate and plaintiff must rebut)