Edward HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael O‘LEARY, Michael P. Lane, Vern Scott, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 91-1993.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Decided Sept. 28, 1992.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 30, 1992.
976 F.2d 341
Argued April 10, 1992.
In any system of representative government, it is inevitable that some elections for four-year or longer terms will occur on the cusp of the decennial census. The terms inevitably will last well into the next decade; and depending on shifts in populations in the preceding decade, the representation may be unequal in the sense that the districts no longer meet a one-person-one-vote test under the new census.... [But] we do not believe that considerations of mathematical equality in representation or the presumption in favor of redistricting every ten years outweigh the considerations outlined above concerning the validity of four-year terms, the settled expectations of voters and elected officials, the costs of elections, and the need for stability and continuity of office.
Id. at 891-92.
Like the Sixth Circuit, we see no requirement that Chicago alter its legitimate decennial redistricting scheme or change its customary four-year term length for aldermen in order to avoid the predictable and temporary delay that occurs once every twenty years in implementing the new census figures. Id. at 892. As the election year pattern demonstrates, supra at note 2, the 1980 census figures were used in three elections, in 1983, 1987, and 1991. These elections span only eight years, surely not an unreasonable amount of time for particular census data to control elections. See Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 583-84, 84 S.Ct. at 1392-93. The four-year terms that Chicago aldermen serve merely indicate that every fifth election (i.e. when the election year falls on the same year that the new census data becomes available) likely will result in a four-year delay in using the new census data. But this simple consequence of the two different schedules (i.e. census every ten years, elections every four) does not diminish the voting power of any protected minority; there is merely a four-year time lag that occurs every other decade between redistricting and elections. Thus, accepting their allegations as true, we hold that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts that would lead us to believe that the Illinois redistricting scheme denies any class of citizens full participation in Chicago‘s political process. As the Supreme Court made clear in Chisom, “Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for the broad remedial purpose of ridding the country of racial discrimination in voting.” Chisom, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 2368. Illinois’ redistricting scheme does not violate that pronouncement.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court‘s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaints.
Arthur Zaban, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tanya Solov (argued), Office of the Atty. Gen., Civ. Appeals Div., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Before POSNER and MANION, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, Senior District Judge.*
MANION, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Edward Hamilton, a former prisoner at the Stateville Correctional Center, brought a
I.
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and drawing inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Prince v. Rescorp Realty, 940 F.2d 1104, 1106 (7th Cir.1991). “However, we are not obliged to ignore any facts set forth in the complaint [or its attached exhibits, see
In December 1984, Hamilton was a prisoner with three cellmates in Cell C-227 at the Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville“) in Joliet, Illinois. Cell C-227 is on the second of four galleries—that is, there are two floors of cells above the second gallery and one floor of cells below. From Cell C-227, Hamilton and his cellmates have access to a large vent. The vent runs the entire vertical length of the four galleries, from the fourth gallery down to the first gallery, and between two cells on each floor. Thus, Hamilton alleges, the prisoners in eight cells, a total of 32 prisoners, have access to some part of the vent.
On December 10, 1984, a general “shakedown” was conducted at Stateville. That morning, Hamilton “heard items being thrown into the vent from other cells.” While searching Hamilton‘s cell, two correctional officers opened the vent and found a 16 1/2” steel pipe, a 7 1/2” file, an 11” sharpened rod and three 9 1/2” shanks. Later that day a different correctional officer, Captain Lescester Hardin, wrote up an Inmate Disciplinary Report (known as a “ticket“) on each of the four prisoners in Cell C-227. Hamilton and his three cellmates were charged with possession of dangerous contraband in violation of Illinois Department of Corrections Rule 504A-104. The ticket charging Hamilton, which is attached to his complaint, states only that the six weapons were found in the cell; it does not state that the weapons were found in the vent. Hamilton received a copy of the ticket that evening but refused to sign it; immediately thereafter, Hamilton told Hardin that the weapons did not belong to him or any of his cellmates.
On December 17, 1984, a Stateville Adjustment Committee composed of defendants Vern Scott, Samuel Ingram and Abraham Flagg held disciplinary hearings for Hamilton and his three cellmates. At his hearing, Hamilton denied having anything to do with the weapons. He testified that the weapons had been found in the vent—not on him and not in the cell; and that the two correctional officers who found the weapons would so testify if called. Hamilton also asked why the prisoners in the cell next to his, Cell C-226, had not been charged and requested that the weapons be checked for fingerprints. No other witnesses were called.
The Adjustment Committee found Hamilton guilty and gave him the same punishment as his cellmates: 60 days of segregation and 60 days reduction in grade. The committee also recommended that 60 days of good time credit be revoked. The Adjustment Committee reported its decision on an Adjustment Committee Summary form which is also attached to the complaint. In the section labeled “Reasons,” the committee wrote: “Inmate denied guilt to the report. Also the Committee notes inmate is assigned to Cell C-227 and is responsible for whatever is found in the cell.”
Hamilton made repeated efforts to overturn his punishment. He filed two grievances with the Stateville Institutional Inquiry Board, but both were denied because Hamilton did not attend the two hearings on them. Hamilton alleges that he did not attend the hearings because he was not given a pass to attend either hearing. He also wrote letters to the Administrative Review Board and O‘Leary. Two different Adjustment Committees did consider, without hearings, whether Hamilton‘s revoked 60 days of good time credit should be restored. The first committee made no recommendation. But on July 15, 1985, the second committee, with O‘Leary‘s approval, recommended to Lane that the credit be restored. This recommendation was based on Hamilton‘s overall record which included no other Inmate Disciplinary Report. On August 2, 1985, Lane partially accepted the recommendation and restored 30 days of Hamilton‘s good time credit. The other 30 days were never restored. In addition, Hamilton was prevented from earning an additional 30 days of good time credit because of his 60 day reduction in grade. Hamilton was released from Stateville on parole on August 16, 1985; the parole ended on October 17, 1989.
On August 14, 1985, Hamilton filed a pro se
II.
Illinois state prisoners have a statutory right to receive good time credits,
Hamilton‘s amended complaint alleges that the defendants “impos[ed] punishment on him when they knew that there was no evidence that Hamilton was guilty of the disciplinary infraction of which he was charged.” If we took this allegation as true, Hamilton certainly has stated a cause of action. But, as the district court stated, Hamilton, 762 F.Supp. at 799, the allegation is contradicted by the Inmate Disciplinary Report and the Adjustment Committee Summary form attached as exhibits to the complaint. The Summary explicitly states that the Adjustment Committee read the Inmate Disciplinary Report made by Hardin. This “ticket” states that on December 10, 1984 at 12:40 p.m., Officer Hardin found six weapons in Cell C-227 while he “was shaking down resident Hamilton.” The Summary also states that the Adjustment Committee‘s decision was based on the ticket and the prison‘s constructive possession rule which holds Hamilton “responsible for whatever is found in the cell.” The ticket, together with constructive possession, is “some evidence” of Hamilton‘s guilt.
Hamilton argues, however, that the constructive possession rule cannot provide a sufficient basis for the Adjustment Committee‘s decision in this case because the weapons were found in the vent to which 32 inmates had access. In the abstract, we must agree with Hamilton‘s contention. The proposition that constructive possession provides “some evidence” of guilt when contraband is found where only a few inmates have access is unproblematic. See, e.g., Hill, 472 U.S. at 456-57, 105 S.Ct. at 2774-75 (three inmates seen fleeing from the scene of an assault); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (contraband found in locker shared by two inmates). If, for example, only two inmates had access to the vent, there is a 50% probability that each inmate is guilty; a 50% probability amounts to “some evidence.” But if, as Hamilton alleges, the weapons could have been tossed in the vent by any one of 32 inmates, then there is only a 3.1% chance that Hamilton is guilty; we doubt that a 3.1% chance is “some evidence” of guilt.
The problem with Hamilton‘s argument is that he did not tell the Adjustment Committee that he heard the weapons being thrown in the vent from other cells. Neither did he tell them that 32 inmates had access to the vent, and there is nothing in the amended complaint from which such knowledge could be inferred. The only evidence before the committee was the ticket and Hamilton‘s testimony. According to the complaint, Hamilton testified that: (1) he had no knowledge of the weapons; (2) the weapons were found in the vent; and (3) the correctional officers, if called, would confirm that the weapons were found in the vent. Hamilton contends that it can reasonably be inferred from this and other allegations in the amended complaint that the Adjustment Committee was aware of the significance of the vent. Hamilton told the Adjustment Committee that the weapons were found in the vent. Since the Adjustment Committee members worked at Stateville, Hamilton reasons, it is reasonable to infer that they were familiar with the construction of the prison and therefore knew that weapons found in the vent could belong to any one of 32 inmates.1 Such an inference, however, is too much of a stretch even for a motion to dismiss. Although four of the defendants worked in
Our review of the Adjustment Committee‘s decision is very narrow. We decide only “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56, 105 S.Ct. at 2774 (emphasis added). This “does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.” Id. at 455, 105 S.Ct. at 2774; see also Viens v. Daniels, 871 F.2d 1328, 1334-36 (7th Cir.1989). Although the evidence before the disciplinary board must “point to the accused‘s guilt,” Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171, 1175 (7th Cir.1989), only evidence that was presented to the Adjustment Committee is relevant to this analysis. The complaint alleges that any one of 32 prisoners could have placed the weapons in the vent, but because the complaint does not allege that this fact was known to the defendants, we cannot consider it here.
According to the facts set forth in the amended complaint and its attachments, the evidence before the Adjustment Committee was that six homemade weapons were found in Cell C-227 which was occupied by and under the control of Hamilton and his three cellmates. Thus, on the record before the Adjustment Committee, there was a 25% probability that Hamilton was the owner of the weapons. As the evidence in Hill, this evidence “might be characterized as meager” and there is no direct evidence identifying one of the four cellmates as the owner of the contraband. 472 U.S. at 457, 105 S.Ct. at 2775. But given the 25% chance of guilt, “the record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the disciplinary board were without support or otherwise arbitrary.” Id. Since the complaint (and its attachments) establish that the Adjustment Committee‘s decision was supported by some evidence, it fails to state a claim.
III.
There are two other issues we must resolve. First, Hamilton contends that the district court erred in dismissing his claim that the Adjustment Committee‘s failure to call the correctional officers involved in the shakedown of his cell as witnesses violated due process. This argument is meritless. As noted above, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, prisoners facing disciplinary proceedings must be given the opportunity to call witnesses. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566, 94 S.Ct. at 2979. In this case, the complaint reveals that Hamilton was given the opportunity to call witnesses but failed to do so. The Inmate Disciplinary Report, which Hamilton received but refused to sign, states:
[Y]ou have a right to ask that witnesses be interviewed and, if necessary in the Committee‘s judgment, they may be called to testify during your hearing. In addition, you may ask the Committee to question the witness along lines you suggest. You must indicate in advance of the hearing the witnesses you wish to have interviewed and specify what they could testify to by filling out the appropriate space on this form, tearing it off, and returning it to the Committee.
Hamilton did not, by filling out the space on the ticket or otherwise, request that any witnesses be called. At his hearing, he did state that the officers, if called as witnesses, would corroborate his testimony that the weapons were found in the vent. Even if this was a request to call the officers as witnesses, which we doubt, the Adjustment Committee could properly deny the request as untimely.
IV.
In his complaint, Hamilton makes allegations which, if true, would bring his guilt into serious doubt. But, although he had the opportunity, Hamilton never presented these claims to the Adjustment Committee—and that is the proper forum for resolving such evidentiary disputes. Hamilton cannot relitigate his guilt in federal court. Our job is simply to ensure that there was “some evidence” to support the revocation of good time credits. This is a low standard which was met in this case by the prison‘s constructive possession rule.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
POSNER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The amended complaint clearly alleges that the plaintiff told the disciplinary committee that another cell, housing, like his, four inmates, had equal access to the vent in which the weapons were found. The correction officer‘s “ticket,” the only other evidence before the committee, stated only that the weapons had been found in a shakedown of the plaintiff‘s cell. This was consistent with the weapons’ having been found in the vent on which the cell gave and which was accessible from the cell. (In fact what happened, all agree, is that in the course of the shakedown the officer opened the screen covering the vent, looked inside, and found the weapons.) On the record before the committee, the probability that the plaintiff had possessed one or more of these weapons cannot be reckoned as greater than one in eight, or 12.5 percent. That is not my idea of “some evidence,” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773 (1985), unless purely collective guilt is deemed to satisfy due process—which in prison circumstances it might be, cf. Ustrak v. Fairman, 781 F.2d 573, 575 (7th Cir.1986), but the defendants do not defend the disciplinary committee‘s action on that ground. Hill itself is distinguishable. The three inmates were seen fleeing the scene of the crime. Each was thus acting guilty; the probability that each was guilty was considerable. Here it is entirely possible that only one of the eight inmates who had access to the vent possessed the six weapons, and there is no evidence to suggest that Hamilton was more likely to be that one than any of the seven other inmates were. Nor is it argued that the six weapons are likely to have been jointly owned by all inmates having access to the place where they were kept.
We know in fact that more than eight inmates had access to the vents—32 in