Richard v. Swiekatowski, 2:20-cv-00876

Plaintiff Matthew Richard, a GBCI inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after prison staff issued a conduct report based on three letters he sent in 2018.
Defendant William Swiekatowski was the facility Security Threat Group (STG) Coordinator who reviewed Richard’s mail, identified references to known Vice Lord members, and issued Conduct Report 3233701 charging violations for STG activity and engaging in an enterprise.
Defendant Andrew Wickman was the hearing officer who presided over disciplinary hearings in January and February 2019 and found Richard guilty; Security Director Kind reviewed and controlled documentary evidence production.
Richard alleged (1) First Amendment retaliation (report issued for lawful correspondence), (2) Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process (fabrication of the report), and (3) Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process against Wickman (denial of requested documentary evidence / impartiality).
At summary judgment the court found Swiekatowski reasonably interpreted the letters as connecting known Vice Lord members and planning revenue-generating activity; Richard offered only speculative or insufficient evidence of pretext.
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied Richard’s motion, and dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation (Swiekatowski)	Richard says report was retaliation for writing to family/friends	Swiekatowski says he issued the report based on content linking Richard to STG members and enterprise activity	Granted summary judgment for Swiekatowski; letters reasonably supported the report, no evidence of pretext
Substantive due process (Swiekatowski)	Fabrication of report violated due process	Same as above; no retaliatory motive shown	Granted summary judgment for Swiekatowski; no underlying retaliation, so no substantive due process violation
Procedural due process (Wickman)	Wickman denied requested documentary evidence and was biased/predisposed	Wickman lacked authority to release documents; Security Director controlled evidence; personal liability requires causation/participation	Granted summary judgment for Wickman; no personal involvement in denying documentary evidence and claim beyond screening order not permitted

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (drawing inferences at summary judgment)
Mays v. Springborn, 719 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013) (causation standard in retaliation claims)
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2013) (pretext evidence required to defeat summary judgment in retaliation cases)
Hawkins v. Mitchell, 756 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2014) (elements of prima facie retaliation claim)
Green v. Doruff, 660 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2011) (but-for / sufficient condition discussion for causation)
Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7th Cir. 1994) (fabricating conduct reports can violate substantive due process)
Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 personal liability requires participation)
Hildebrant v. Ill. Dep't of Nat. Res., 347 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2003) (liability requires causing or participating in constitutional violation)