Pedro Chairez v. Marcellus Ottensmeier, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Pedro Chairez’s second motion to reconsider dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim concerning prison disciplinary proceedings and confidential informants. The court construed the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), holding that Jackson v. Anastasio did not require reinstatement because Chairez had not alleged comparable appalling segregation conditions and had received the informal process required by Seventh Circuit precedent. Claim 3 remained dismissed, while Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 remained pending.

Holdings

1. Because the dismissal of Claim 3 was not a final judgment, Plaintiff's motion was properly construed as a request to revise an interlocutory ruling under Rule 54(b), rather than as a motion governed primarily by Rule 60(b).
2. Jackson v. Anastasio does not establish that every short term of disciplinary segregation creates a protected liberty interest or that administrative detention is categorically an atypical and significant hardship. A short term of solitary confinement creates a protected liberty interest only when combined with comparable appalling conditions, and three months of segregation alone is insufficient.
3. Even assuming Plaintiff had a protected liberty interest, Claim 3 could not proceed because a prisoner who does not face loss of good-time credit or another sentence-lengthening punishment is entitled only to informal, non-adversarial due process rather than the full procedures described in Wolff v. McDonnell.
4. The disciplinary ticket and hearing procedures satisfied the informal due process standard because Plaintiff received notice of the reasons for the disciplinary action and an opportunity to present his views.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's second motion seeking relief under Rule 60(b) should be construed under Rule 54(b) because the dismissal of Claim 3 was interlocutory.
2. Whether Jackson v. Anastasio changed the governing law so as to require reinstatement of Claim 3 based on three months of disciplinary segregation and related administrative detention.
3. Whether Plaintiff adequately alleged denial of the informal due process required for a disciplinary sanction that did not involve loss of good-time credit or another sentence-lengthening punishment.
4. Whether the disciplinary report and hearing procedures provided constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to present Plaintiff's views.

Disposition

other