Shane Kervin v. La Clair Barnes, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8934

Kervin, an Indiana state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging prison officials punished him for insisting on meeting with his attorney and thwarted his grievances.
A guard initially barred Kervin from the visitation room, then allowed the lawyer visit but threatened to write a false report and have Kervin placed in segregation.
Kervin served up to 30 days in segregation and temporarily lost telephone and commissary privileges.
He alleged grievance officers were hostile and prevented meaningful redress through the prison grievance system.
The district court gave Kervin two opportunities to amend, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Kervin failed to show protected speech or a due-process liberty deprivation under Sandin.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether punishment violated First Amendment (meeting with lawyer)	Kervin: punished for insisting on meeting and speaking with his lawyer — protected speech/association	Defendants: punishment was for insubordinate/backtalk conduct, not protected speech	Court: Not enough factual detail that meeting involved protected speech; backtalk not protected — claim dismissed
Whether segregation & loss of privileges deprived a liberty interest under due process (Sandin)	Kervin: segregation (≤30 days) and loss of privileges were punishments that violated due process	Defendants: sanctions were not atypical or significant relative to ordinary prison conditions	Court: Aggregate punishments and duration assessed; 30 days and temporary loss of privileges, with no alleged serious injury, did not constitute a Sandin liberty deprivation — dismissal affirmed
Whether biased grievance officers violated constitutional rights by blocking grievance process	Kervin: grievance officers’ hostility prevented exhaustion and meaningful redress, violating due process	Defendants: prisoner not barred from litigating; inadequacies of grievance process alone do not create constitutional violations	Court: Grievance process failings cannot by themselves form a constitutional claim; dismissal proper

Ustrak v. Fairman, 781 F.2d 573 (7th Cir. 1986) (speech that undermines prison discipline not protected)
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009) (restricting inmate speech that threatens discipline)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (standard for due-process liberty deprivation in prison disciplinary contexts)
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (solitary-like conditions described; courts vary in defining ‘‘atypical and significant’’)
Marion v. Columbia Correctional Inst., 559 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2009) (aggregate circumstances of confinement must be considered in liberty-deprivation analysis)
Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006) (prisoner excused from exhaustion when grievance process is rendered unavailable)