Black v. Brown
| Decision Date | 29 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 71 C 1519.,71 C 1519. |
| Citation | 524 F. Supp. 856 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | Richard BLACK, Petitioner, v. Herbert D. BROWN, Peter B. Bensinger, John J. Twomey, and Frank J. Pate, Respondents. |
Jerold S. Solovy, Robert L. Byman, Barbara S. Steiner, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Thomas Connors, Warren K. Smoot, Asst. Attys. Gen., William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
This matter is before the court after remand from the Seventh Circuit for hearing on the merits. For the reasons stated below, petitioner is granted $5,000.00 damages for the deprivation of procedural due process rights and the infliction of excessive punishment.
On the morning of March 21, 1969, petitioner, Richard Black, an inmate at Illinois State Penitentiary in Joliet, was in line for breakfast at the penitentiary. An inmate struck a fellow inmate with a pipe. Black claims that one of the guards, Officer Gentry, shouted "Stop that man." Although Gentry denies making the statement, it is undisputed that someone yelled those words. In response, Black and other inmates chased the offender into the yard, until they were stopped by a guard firing into the air.
Later that day, Black was placed in punitive isolation. After one hour in isolation he was taken to Captain Holmes' office, where he was asked what he knew about the incident between the two inmates. Black was in the office for less than five minutes. At no time was Black given a hearing re the nature of his offense. On the 12th day of his confinement in isolation, Captain Holmes came to his cell and read him the offense he was charged with from the hallway. Black, knowing he had received the maximum penalty in isolation already, felt nothing he could say at this time would help reduce his punishment. He therefore said nothing. When his 15 day sentence in isolation expired, however, he was not returned to his cell but placed in punitive segregation. He remained there for 18 months. At no time was he given any explanation for his placement in segregation, or an opportunity to be heard.
Black brought this action pursuant to § 1983, alleging violation of his constitutional rights when he was placed in isolation and segregation without a hearing; that he was denied reasonable access to the courts; that he was subject to cruel and unusual punishment; and that he was denied due process when some of his good time credits were revoked. Defendants are the past and present official directors of the penitentiary. After dismissal by the district court, the Seventh Circuit, while affirming dismissal of the good time credits complaint, remanded the remainder of the case for a hearing on the merits.1
Although this circuit has recognized specific procedural guaranties to be applied in prison matters, that decision was reached after this cause of action arose and cannot be applied retroactively. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); United States ex rel. Miller v. Twomey, 479 F.2d 701 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, Gutierrez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 414 U.S. 1146, 94 S.Ct. 900, 39 L.Ed.2d 102 (1974). Nevertheless, it is clear that defendants knew, or should have known, that any deprivation of rights must be accompanied by an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The importance of the hearing in procedural due process is too long well-established for prison officials to claim they did not know of its guaranties. The time and place of the hearing may vary according to the nature of the interests involved. Therefore, a hearing would not be required before any disciplinary action could take place in a prison. Yet it is inexcusable that a prisoner be in isolation for 12 days out of a 15 day sentence before he is informed of any charges pending against him. It is equally inexcusable that a prisoner be placed in punitive segregation for 18 months without an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madyun v. Franzen
... ... Pickett, supra, 586 F.2d at 28 (7 months in segregation disproportionate to violation involving refusal to perform work as instructed); Black v. Brown, 524 F.Supp. 856 (N.D.Ill.1981) (18 months of combined isolation and segregation for running in the prison yard). We have held that the ... ...
-
Haynes v. Lambor, 89 C 8393.
...to the offense of failing to perform work as instructed, especially when refusal was based on religious grounds); Black v. Brown, 524 F.Supp. 856, 858 (N.D.Ill.1981) aff'd. in part without opinion and rev'd. in part without opinion 688 F.2d 841 (7th Cir.1982) (eighteen months segregation fo......
-
Black v. Brown
...841 688 F.2d 841 Black v. Brown 81-2227 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Seventh Circuit 7/15/82 N.D.Ill., 524 F.Supp. 856 REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN ...