565 F. App'x 535
7th Cir.2014Background
- Obriecht, a Wisconsin inmate convicted of sexual offenses, wrote unsolicited letters to recent high-school graduates while working in the prison library; recipients complained.
- A staff member filed a disciplinary report accusing Obriecht of unauthorized use of library equipment, mail misuse, and possessing contraband; he admitted writing the letters and using library time/equipment.
- A disciplinary hearing found him guilty and imposed 180 days’ segregation (he served 78 days), loss of his job, and administrative appeals were denied; he was later denied parole.
- Obriecht filed a § 1983 suit alleging due-process violations and First Amendment retaliation based on three grievances he filed about prison conditions in 2007, naming many defendants involved at various stages.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding (1) most defendants lacked knowledge of the grievances; (2) the few who knew did not take the adverse actions at issue; and (3) Obriecht had no protected property or liberty interest (segregation duration did not qualify).
- Obriecht’s requests for appointed counsel were denied without prejudice; he later failed to renew the request after amending his complaint and through summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation — knowledge element | Obriecht: prison-wide rumor evidence shows staff knew about his grievances, so defendants knew and retaliated | Defendants: affidavits deny knowledge; no direct evidence defendants knew of grievances | Court: Plaintiff’s inmate hearsay/speculation insufficient; defendants’ personal-knowledge affidavits prevail; no knowledge shown for most defendants |
| Retaliation — causation for appeal-stage officials | Obriecht: four administrators who knew of grievances denied his appeals; timing implies retaliatory motive | Defendants: their review and denials were routine appellate functions, not adverse actions motivated by retaliation | Court: timing unsurprising given their roles; no direct evidence of retaliatory motive; refusals on appeal do not make them liable for underlying defects |
| Procedural due process — protected interests | Obriecht: segregation, job loss, and parole denial together created a liberty/property interest requiring due process | Defendants: prison job not a protected property interest; parole not a protected liberty interest here; segregation duration not atypical | Court: No protected property interest in prison employment; parole claim fails (not two-thirds through sentence); 78 days’ segregation not an atypical, significant hardship — due-process claim fails |
| Right to appointed counsel | Obriecht: district court should have recruited counsel earlier | Defendants: appointment of counsel is discretionary and was properly deferred | Court: No right to counsel; denials without prejudice were proper; Obriecht failed to renew request, so no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2012) (prison grievance activity can be First Amendment protected conduct)
- Hobbs v. City of Chicago, 573 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2009) (retaliation claim requires defendant's knowledge of protected activity)
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge, not speculation)
- Buie v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 366 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004) (self-serving affidavits based on personal knowledge are admissible on summary judgment)
- McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 2013) (denial of administrative review does not necessarily make reviewers liable for defects in the underlying proceedings)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (standard for liberty interest in prison conditions; ‘‘atypical and significant hardship’’ test)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (establishing atypical-and-significant-hardship test for liberty interests)
- Hoskins v. Lenear, 395 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2005) (prison employment is not a protected property interest)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil prisoner suits)