Peretz v. Sims
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22837
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Peretz was convicted of aggravated driving while license revoked, a Class 4 felony with a 180-day mandatory minimum.
- IDOC initially calculated tentative release date from custody date and standard good-time credits.
- Director awarded 87 days of meritorious good-time; full 180-day award would have reduced time below the minimum, so 87 days were chosen.
- Peretz served exactly 180 days and was released on August 20, 2007.
- Peretz sued three state employees (warden and two counselors) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging arbitrary withholding of meritorious good-time credit.
- District court granted summary judgment for the state employees, relying on lack of proper party defendants and Peretz’s failure to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the named officers proper defendants for § 1983 liability? | Peretz argues the warden and counselors caused the deprivation. | Defendants contend only IDOC Records Office and Director could alter credits; named employees lack ability. | No genuine issue; defendants not proper parties. |
| Did Peretz raise a genuine issue of material fact despite no response to summary judgment? | There is a factual dispute over the denial of meritorious credit. | Undisputed facts show the Director, not named employees, controlled credit; no dispute on causation. | No; facts point to the Director as responsible; no genuine issue against named defendants. |
| Did the district court err by not addressing potential constitutional deprivation given the theory of arbitrary withholding? | Arbitrary withholding violated due process. | Proceeding focuses on proper defendants; even if deprivation occurred, liability lies elsewhere. | Not addressed; alternative ground sufficient for affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deere & Co. v. Ohio Gear, 462 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2006) (district court discretion in handling summary judgment impacts)
- Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153 (7th Cir. 1996) (extension of time to respond; emergency extensions refused)
- Johnson v. Manitowoc Cnty., 635 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment de novo; standard of review)
- Rain v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 626 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2010) (facts viewed in light favorable to nonmoving party when appropriate)
- Bio v. Fed. Express Corp., 424 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment standard: movant must show no genuine dispute)
- Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2008) (tie actions of named defendants to alleged injuries)
- Cardoso v. Robert Bosch Corp., 427 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2005) (opportunity to contest issues; adequate district court grounding)