Miller v. Dobier
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2805
7th Cir.2011Background
- Miller, civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, sues Rushville facility officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for disciplinary procedures.
- Two incidents prompted the suit: an August 2007 major violation for threatening a deputy sheriff and a July 2008 alleged disturbance while medically isolated.
- Disciplinary outcomes included: placement in general status followed by intermediate status, access and privilege restrictions, and the “black box” handcuffs for 1 year after the August 2007 finding; and a 30-day close status with curfew and visit/license restrictions after the July 2008 finding.
- Miller argued that civil detainees are entitled to advance notice, opportunity to present evidence, and a written explanation with at least some evidence supporting discipline, citing Wolff and related line of cases.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling Miller had no liberty deprivation cognizable under due process for these disciplinary measures.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that where confinement restrictions do not amount to a liberty deprivation, due process rights need not be triggered under Sandin and related precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller was deprived of liberty requiring due process safeguards | Miller asserts procedural protections akin to prisoners. | Disciplinary sanctions did not deprive Miller of liberty. | No liberty deprivation; no due process right triggered. |
| Whether the disciplinary measures constitute actionable due process under Sandin | Sanctions were punitive and thus constitutional violations. | Sandin governs; restrictions here do not amount to a due process violation. | Not actionable under Sandin; no procedural safeguards required. |
| Whether civil detainees have heightened procedural protections when disciplined | Civil detainees receive Wolff-like process. | Different standard; no liberty deprivation. | Same standard as prisoners; no extra safeguards unless liberty impairment occurs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1985) (deprivation of liberty core for due process analysis; governs when punishment rises to liberty loss)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (parity of procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings)
- Hill v. Mass. Correctional Institution, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (due process for disciplinary actions in prison context; factors for liberty interest)
- Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621 (7th Cir.2006) (analysis of liberty interests in disciplinary settings)
- Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437 (7th Cir.2002) (distinction between emergency segregation and punitive confinement)
- Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243 (7th Cir.1991 (en banc)) (duty to provide due process when there is liberty deprivation regardless of motive)
- West v. Schwebke, 333 F.3d 745 (7th Cir.2003) (due process constraints on confinement and procedures)
- Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478 (7th Cir.2002) (principles on liberty interests for detainees)
- Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3d Cir.2002) (liberty/property interests in confinement)
- Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir.2003) (procedural safeguards in disciplinary context)