The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision in the case of Norberto Torres, a prisoner who claimed his due process rights were violated during a disciplinary hearing. The court’s ruling centers on the level of due process required for inmates facing disciplinary segregation, particularly when good-time credits are not at stake.
The case began when Torres received two disciplinary tickets at Menard Correctional Center. The tickets alleged he was involved in gang-related activity by filling out a “Latin Folk questionnaire.” After a hearing, Torres was sentenced to three months in segregation. He argued the hearing lacked the necessary procedural safeguards required by the Constitution.
The Facts of the Case
In March 2017, Torres was issued a disciplinary ticket for alleged gang affiliation. The ticket stemmed from a “Latin Folk questionnaire” found in another prisoner’s belongings. The prison officials believed Torres had filled out the questionnaire, which is considered gang-related activity.
A hearing was held, and the first ticket was dismissed. However, a second ticket with nearly identical allegations was issued shortly after, and Torres was immediately placed in segregation. This second ticket included more details, such as a comparison of the questionnaire to Torres’s handwriting samples. It also stated that Torres was a member of the Maniac Latin Disciples, a gang under the Latin Folk umbrella.
Torres remained in segregation for a week until the hearing on the second ticket. He claims he requested a witness for the hearings, but the request was not fulfilled. At the hearing, no witnesses testified, and the IDOC presented only the ticket itself. Torres was not shown the paperwork used to determine he completed the questionnaire. He pleaded not guilty, stating he did not fill out the questionnaire. Hart and Brookman recommended a guilty finding and punishments, including three months in segregation. The warden approved the recommendation.
Torres filed a grievance, arguing several violations of IDOC rules, including the denial of an investigator, the lack of opportunity to prepare properly, the denial of witnesses, and the inability to see the questionnaire or handwriting samples. He also disputed his membership in the Latin Folk Union. The grievance officer found Torres guilty but recommended expunging the ticket due to hearing irregularities. The warden agreed, and the ticket was expunged in mid-June 2017, after Torres had served his three months in segregation.
Torres described the conditions in segregation as “inhumane,” citing a leaking toilet, mold, mildew, and a lack of essential items for several days. He also testified about insects, rust, and polluted conditions in the cell.
Torres filed a lawsuit in early 2019. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court held that Torres had not shown the conditions in segregation constituted an “atypical and significant hardship,” therefore, he was not deprived of a liberty interest. Torres appealed, arguing there were material fact issues regarding the confinement conditions.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Seventh Circuit, in its ruling, acknowledged that the conditions of Torres’s segregation might have constituted an “atypical and significant hardship,” potentially triggering due process protections. However, the court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s decision based on its interpretation of existing precedent.
The court relied heavily on the case of *Adams v. Reagle*, which established that inmates facing disciplinary segregation are entitled to “informal, non-adversarial due process.” This means they are entitled to notice of the reasons for their placement in segregation and an opportunity to present their views, such as through a written statement or at a hearing. The decisionmaker must also remain impartial.
The court found that Torres received these protections: he was given notice of the charges, an opportunity to respond at the hearing, and the hearing officers were impartial. The court also cited that the district court had expunged the ticket due to violations of the state’s administrative hearing procedures.
The court rejected Torres’s argument that he had a right to call witnesses, stating that *Adams* does not require such a right in cases involving only disciplinary segregation. The court distinguished this situation from cases where the loss of good-time credits is at stake, which would trigger more robust due process protections.
The Dissenting Opinion
Judge Rovner wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority’s ruling inappropriately narrows the due process rights of prisoners. Judge Rovner contends that the court’s interpretation of *Adams* conflates two distinct lines of case law: one dealing with administrative decisions, like prison transfers, and the other with disciplinary actions for misconduct.
Judge Rovner argues that disciplinary findings, like the one against Torres, should require more robust procedural protections, including the right to call witnesses, present documentary evidence, and access exculpatory evidence. She believes that the majority’s decision leaves inmates in disciplinary segregation with limited avenues for challenging wrongful findings, even if the conditions of their confinement are exceptionally harsh.
Judge Rovner emphasized that the conditions Torres faced, including a cell with a leaking toilet, mold, mildew, and insects, were sufficiently harsh to establish a liberty interest. She argued that the denial of witnesses, without explanation, violated Torres’s due process rights.
The dissent suggests that the court should have reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
* The case clarifies the level of due process required for inmates facing disciplinary segregation in the Seventh Circuit.
* The court emphasizes that, under the *Adams* precedent, informal, non-adversarial due process is sufficient in such cases, unless the inmate faces the loss of good-time credits.
* The dissenting opinion argues that this interpretation of the law unduly restricts the due process rights of prisoners, particularly when the conditions of segregation are unusually harsh.
* The case highlights the ongoing debate about balancing the rights of prisoners with the needs of prison administration.