Robert Westefer v. Michael Neal
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11386
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Tamms is Illinois’s high-security supermax unit; inmates are kept in near isolation due to safety concerns.
- A class action challenged IDOC’s transfer procedures to Tamms; a prior appeal remanded for due-process review following Wilkinson.
- IDOC developed the Ten-Point Plan to overhaul transfer procedures and submitted it to the district court at trial.
- The district court found the Tamms transfer regime to impose atypical, significant hardship and granted an injunction adopting the Ten-Point Plan.
- IDOC appealed, challenging the injunction as broader and more specific than necessary under the PLRA.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded to craft an injunction that is narrowly tailored to the constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the injunction overbroad under the PLRA? | Westefer argues the injunction imposes fixed procedures beyond due process. | IDOC contends Wilkinson allows only informal procedures and flexibility; injunction fixed too much detail. | Yes; injunction vacated as overbroad and remanded. |
| Did Wilkinson require the exact Ten-Point Plan as a constitutional baseline? | Plaintiffs rely on Wilkinson as setting required procedures. | Wilkinson permits informal, nonadversary procedures with discretion for administrators. | No; Wilkinson does not mandate Ohio’s exact regime. |
| Are the notice/hearing deadlines and content requirements in the injunction permissible? | Deadline-driven process anticipated by the Ten-Point Plan is essential. | Fixed deadlines and detailed reporting exceed the least intrusive means required by the PLRA. | No; the injunction’s specifics exceed constitutional requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court, 2005) (informal, nonadversary procedures sufficient for supermax transfer)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court, 1983) (informal review; single neutral reviewer acceptable)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1979) (informal due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court, 1974) (notice and opportunity to prepare for hearings in prison disciplinary matters)
- Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841 (Seventh Cir., 2011) (acknowledges inmates’ right to call witnesses where consistent with safety)
- Westefer v. Snyder, 422 F.3d 570 (Seventh Cir., 2005) (due-process framework for Tamms transfer procedures)
- Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655 (Seventh Cir., 2004) (PLRA injunction standard: narrowly drawn and least intrusive)
- Alston v. DeBruyn, 13 F.3d 1036 (Seventh Cir., 1994) (informal, nonadversary review principles)
- Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (Ninth Cir., 1986) (informal, nonadversary review framework)