Torres v. Brookman
3:19-cv-00248
S.D. Ill.Jun 11, 2019Background
- Torres, an Illinois inmate at Menard, was issued an IDR (365 Ticket) for alleged participation in a Security Threat Group after a handwritten questionnaire was found at another prison with his name and handwriting.
- At a March 15, 2017 adjustment hearing, Brookman and Hart expunged the 365 Ticket; Warden Lashbrook approved.
- Despite expungement, Torres was sent to segregation and then issued a new, nearly identical IDR (409 Ticket) on March 17; at a March 22 hearing Brookman and Hart found him guilty and imposed 3 months in segregation and loss of privileges.
- Torres alleges he was not given a copy of the questionnaire that formed the basis of the charges and was threatened if he protested; he grieved the 409 Ticket and it was later expunged for procedural defects.
- Torres also alleges while in segregation he reported a malfunctioning, unsanitary toilet and lack of cleaning supplies to Lashbrook, who promised remediation but left him in the cell for ~2.5 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconvening and convicting Torres on a substantially identical disciplinary charge after prior expungement violates due process/double jeopardy | Torres: Having been cleared/expunged once, he could not be recharged on the same basis | Defendants: Double jeopardy principles do not bar successive prison disciplinary hearings | Court: Double jeopardy does not apply in the prison disciplinary context (dismissed as DB claim) |
| Whether failure to produce the allegedly incriminating questionnaire violated procedural due process | Torres: Not receiving the questionnaire deprived him of exculpatory evidence and adequate opportunity to prepare | Defendants: (implicit) institutional/other reasons for nondisclosure; no clear showing questionnaire was exculpatory | Court: At screening, Torres plausibly stated a due process claim for failure to disclose the questionnaire; Count 1 proceeds against Brookman and Hart |
| Whether confinement in unsanitary cell with malfunctioning toilet and lack of cleaning supplies violated Eighth Amendment | Torres: Conditions were objectively serious and Lashbrook was deliberately indifferent after being informed | Lashbrook: (implicit) no deliberate indifference or conditions not sufficiently serious | Court: Allegations suffice to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim; Count 2 proceeds against Lashbrook |
| Whether counsel should be recruited for Torres | Torres: Has limited legal knowledge and sought counsel but cannot afford representation | Defendants: (n/a) | Court: Denied recruitment of counsel without prejudice; Torres competent to proceed pro se at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996) (an acquittal in an earlier prison disciplinary hearing does not bar a subsequent hearing on the same charge)
- Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2003) (inmates are entitled to disclosure of material exculpatory evidence in disciplinary hearings absent institutional need)
- Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2008) (standards for Eighth Amendment inadequate conditions claims: objective seriousness and deliberate indifference)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (factors governing recruitment of counsel for indigent prisoners)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for stating a claim)