Reveles v. Campbell, et al.

Summary

In this merit review order, the court dismisses Arturo Reveles’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court concludes that the allegations concerning disciplinary segregation, transfer, loss of good-conduct credit, staff-assault classification, and supervisory liability do not presently state viable due process or other constitutional claims. The court grants Reveles a final 30-day opportunity to file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a due process claim based on 255 days of disciplinary segregation because Reveles did not describe conditions showing that the confinement imposed an atypical and significant hardship or unusually harsh conditions.
2. The alleged disciplinary transfer to a more restrictive maximum-security facility did not implicate a federal due process right because a prisoner has no due process right to confinement in any particular facility.
3. Reveles could not pursue his § 1983 due process claim challenging the revocation of good-conduct credit because he did not allege that the underlying disciplinary finding had been overturned or otherwise invalidated.
4. The sparse allegations concerning reclassification as a staff assaulter were insufficient to state a due process claim.
5. The Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections could not be held liable solely because of her supervisory role, absent allegations of personal involvement in a constitutional violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the allegations concerning 255 days in disciplinary segregation stated a procedural due process claim.
2. Whether the transfer to a more restrictive maximum-security facility implicated a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause.
3. Whether the revocation of six months of good-conduct credit could be challenged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the underlying disciplinary finding had not been overturned.
4. Whether the allegations concerning reclassification as a staff assaulter stated a due process claim.
5. Whether the Illinois Department of Corrections Acting Director could be held liable under § 1983 based solely on her supervisory position.

Disposition

dismissed