`CHARLES DUGAN, et al.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1585
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`BRANDON ANTHONY MOCKBEE,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`Brandon Mockbee alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional
`
`rights by confining him in administrative segregation for a prolonged length of
`
`time without meaningful periodic reviews of his status and subjected him to
`
`inhumane conditions of confinement. The defendants have moved for summary
`
`judgment. For the reasons that follow, their motion is GRANTED.
`
`I.
`Standard of Review
`
`Parties in a civil dispute may move for summary judgment, which is a way
`
`of resolving a case short of a trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment
`
`is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any of the material facts,
`
`and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Pack v.
`
`Middlebury Cmty. Schs., 990 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2021). A "genuine
`
`dispute" exists when a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the
`
`nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
`
`"Material facts" are those that might affect the outcome of the suit. Id.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 1586
`
`
`
`When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the
`
`record and draws all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to
`
`the nonmoving party. Khungar v. Access Cmty. Health Network, 985 F.3d 565,
`
`572-73 (7th Cir. 2021). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility
`
`determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-
`
`finder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court is only
`
`required to consider the materials cited by the parties, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3);
`
`it is not required to "scour every inch of the record" for evidence that is potentially
`
`relevant. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 573–74 (7th Cir. 2017).
`
`"[A] party seeking summary
`
`judgment always bears the
`
`initial
`
`responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
`
`identifying
`
`those portions of
`
`'the pleadings, depositions, answers
`
`to
`
`interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which
`
`it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex
`
`Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[T]he burden on the moving party
`
`may be discharged by 'showing'—that is, pointing out to the district court—that
`
`there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at
`
`325.
`
`II.
`Procedural Background
`
`Mr. Mockbee filed his complaint on October 19, 2020, while confined at
`
`Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF). Dkt. 2. The Court screened Mr.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 1587
`
`Mockbee's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on February 3, 2021, and
`
`noted the following allegations:
`
`Mr. Mockbee states Branchville Correctional Facility ("BCF") Warden
`Kathy Alvey placed him in administrative segregation on January
`15, 2020, and that he remains in administrative segregation at
`WVCF. During this time, he has been confined to his cell 24 hours
`per day and has not been allowed any recreation or interaction with
`other prisoners. His placement in administrative segregation has not
`been meaningfully reviewed.
`
`Dkt. 16 at 2.
`
`Based on these allegations, the Court identified plausible Eighth and
`
`Fourteenth Amendment claims against six defendants: BCF Warden Kathy Alvey,
`
`WVCF Warden Richard Brown, WVCF Case Worker Charles Dugan, WVCF
`
`Classification Officer Matt Leohr, Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC)
`
`Classification Director Jack Hendrix, and IDOC Commissioner Robert Carter. Id.
`
`The Court directed Mr. Mockbee to file an amended complaint if he believed the
`
`Court failed to recognize any claims, see id. at 6, but he never did so.
`
`The Court specifically acknowledged and dismissed Eighth Amendment
`
`conditions-of-confinement claims based on allegations that Mr. Mockbee was
`
`deprived of showers and commissary access, forced to eat in his cell, and denied
`
`visits and adequate access to legal materials. Dkt. 16 at 3. Therefore, his Eighth
`
`Amendment claims are based solely on the allegations noted at screening—that
`
`Mr. Mockbee was confined to his cell 24 hours per day and deprived of recreation
`
`or interaction with other prisoners.
`
`Defendants moved for summary judgment, and the motion is fully briefed.
`
`Dkts. 155; 179; 182.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 1588
`
`III.
`Factual Background
`
`Because the defendants moved for summary judgment, the Court views
`
`and recites the evidence "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
`
`draw[s] all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Zerante v. DeLuca, 555
`
`F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
`
`On January 16, 2020, while incarcerated at Branchville, Mr. Mockbee was
`
`placed in the administrative restricted housing unit (RHU) pending investigation
`
`of an alleged disciplinary violation. Dkt. 180-1 at 5.
`
`A week later, case worker Michelle Woodland completed a seven-day review
`
`form stating that Mr. Mockbee would remain in the RHU while the investigation
`
`continued. Id. at 1. She completed this review just outside Mr. Mockbee's cell
`
`door, where she appeared to be distracted by over 100 other inmates yelling for
`
`her attention. Dkt. 180 at 1.
`
`Ms. Woodland completed a second seven-day review on January 30. Dkt.
`
`180-1 at 2. This time, Ms. Woodland wrote that Mr. Mockbee would remain in
`
`the RHU and checked a box to indicate that he was a "[t]hreat to facility security."
`
`Id.
`
`On January 30, Mr. Mockbee also filed a classification appeal challenging
`
`his continued confinement in the RHU. Id. at 12. Mr. Mockbee asserted that his
`
`disciplinary case was resolved and the basis for his confinement in the RHU was
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 1589
`
`therefore no longer valid. Id. Classification Officer Greg Sanders denied the
`
`appeal on February 3, 2020, deeming that the issue was "not appealable." Id.1
`
`Ms. Woodland completed another seven-day review on February 13, again
`
`characterizing Mr. Mockbee as a security threat without any explanation. Id. at
`
`3. Ms. Woodland wrote that the classification officer directed that Mr. Mockbee
`
`would remain in the RHU and that Mr. Mockbee would be transferred to a
`
`different prison as soon as the IDOC Central Office approved necessary
`
`paperwork. Id. She completed a nearly identical seven-day review on February
`
`20. Id. at 4.
`
`Mr. Mockbee wrote a second classification appeal on February 22, 2020,
`
`challenging the decision to transfer him to a different facility with an
`
`administrative segregation unit. Id. at 13. Mr. Mockbee alleged that the decision
`
`was retaliation for a legal action he took against Warden Alvey. Id. In his
`
`declaration, Mr. Mockbee alleges that Warden Alvey requested his transfer to
`
`keep him from achieving a more favorable security classification. Dkt. 180 at 2.
`
`Mr. Mockbee also complained in his classification appeal that he was unable to
`
`participate in a Department of Labor program or other programs that could
`
`improve his security classification. Dkt. 180-1 at 13.
`
`Mr. Hendrix denied the appeal on March 19. Id. In a letter, Mr. Hendrix
`
`explained to Mr. Mockbee that the transfer:
`
`
`1 Mr. Mockbee states in his declaration that Mr. Hendrix "advised" that his first
`classification appeal "was denied but declined to give any explanation" except that it
`raised "a non-grievable issue." Dkt. 180 at 3. This appears to refer to Mr. Sanders's
`response to the first classification appeal.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 1590
`
`was based on your conduct history, failure to adjust, and both
`overall along with recent negative adjustment. Within the past year
`you have been found guilty of 7 conduct reports, which were all
`Class B's. Your conduct record demonstrates an unwillingness to
`follow the rules and regulations. Your placement is appropriate.
`
`Id. at 10. In a separate letter, Derek Christian of the Classification Division
`
`addressed Mr. Mockbee's complaints regarding programs and job assignments.
`
`Id. at 23.
`
`
`
`Mr. Mockbee was transferred to WVCF on March 13, 2020. Dkt. 159-1. On
`
`March 26, Mr. Dugan completed a form noting Mr. Mockbee's assignment to
`
`department-wide administrative restrictive housing (DWRH-A). Dkt. 180-1 at 14.
`
`Mr. Dugan checked boxes indicating that Mr. Mockbee's placement was based
`
`on a need for additional observation, an overall negative adjustment, a recent
`
`negative adjustment, and a failure to adjust. Id. He also explained:
`
`Offender Mockbee, Brandon is currently being housed on DWRH-A
`due to recent conduct violations and his history of making threats
`against staff. His most recent conduct was on 3-2-20. At that time
`he was written up on 3 B252's, interfering with staff. He also has a
`pending B213-threatening pending at this time.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`The record does not include any written reviews of Mr. Mockbee's
`
`placement in April, May, June, or July 2020. On August 4, Mr. Dugan completed
`
`a document titled "Behavior Modification Plan." Dkt. 180-1 at 15. According to
`
`this document, Mr. Mockbee was to remain in DWRH-A because of continued
`
`failure to adjust. Id. Specifically, Mr. Dugan noted that Mr. Mockbee accrued
`
`another disciplinary violation in June and failed to complete two programs,
`
`including an anger management program. Id. On the positive side, Mr. Dugan
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 1591
`
`noted that Mr. Mockbee had completed his recommended and required mental
`
`health evaluations and screenings. Id.
`
`
`
`On August 14, Mr. Dugan completed a form titled "Report of Classification
`
`Hearing." Dkt. 180-1 at 26. Mr. Dugan requested that Mr. Mockbee be
`
`reclassified and approved for transfer to any Level 4 IDOC facility. Id. Shortly
`
`thereafter, Mr. Leohr approved Mr. Mockbee for discharge from department-wide
`
`administrative segregation and recommended his transfer to a Level 3 facility
`
`due to his conduct history. Id.
`
`
`
`Mr. Mockbee appealed his reclassification and recommended transfer on
`
`September 30, 2020. Dkt. 180-1 at 28. He asserted that his conduct history
`
`warranted transfer to a less restrictive Level 1 or 2 facility. Id. He added that he
`
`had been deprived of a 90-day review of his DWRH-A classification and any
`
`opportunity to present documents to the staff members determining his
`
`classification. Id. He requested "a full board hearing." Id. Kevin Gilmore denied
`
`Mr. Mockbee's appeal the following week and provided the following explanation:
`
`Your classification appeal and all related documents have been
`reviewed. You received 9 class B conduct reports in the past year.
`You are appropriately classified.
`
`Id. Mr. Mockbee alleges in his declaration that each of these conduct reports was
`
`ultimately dismissed, or he was acquitted of the charges. Dkt. 180 at 3–4.
`
`However, he does not cite any other evidence to support this assertion.
`
`
`
`Mr. Mockbee also wrote Case Worker Jerry Snyder on September 30 and
`
`requested a 90-day review of his classification and to be transferred out of
`
`segregation. Dkt. 180-1 at 25. Mr. Snyder responded on October 2 that there
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 1592
`
`was "no reason to do" a 90-day review because Mr. Mockbee was "already
`
`approved for release" from segregation. Id. Mr. Snyder added that Mr. Mockbee
`
`had been approved for transfer to New Castle Correctional Facility (NCCF) and
`
`that he would continue to receive "monthly reviews" until then. Id.
`
`
`
`Mr. Mockbee submitted another classification appeal on October 20, 2020.
`
`Dkt. 180-1 at 27. Mr. Mockbee opposed his transfer to NCCF and demanded a
`
`90-day review. Id. Mr. Gilmore provided the following response three days later:
`
`Your classification appeal and all related documents have been
`reviewed. Due to your extensive conduct history, it was determined
`by the UMT that placement at NCN TU was appropriate based on
`your criminogenic risk/need factors. 90 days reviews are not
`appropriate at this time. You are not assigned to DRSHA. You are
`on ARSH pending transfer.
`
`Appeal denied.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`On December 30, 2020, Mr. Mockbee wrote Mr. Snyder again and asked
`
`whether prison policy called for 90-day reviews for inmates in administrative
`
`segregation. Id. at 25. Mr. Snyder responded on January 4, 2021: "Yes, but you
`
`are already approved for release so we will do the 30 day reviews." Id.
`
`Mr. Mockbee was transferred to NCCF on January 28, 2021. Dkt. 159-1.
`
`Mr. Mockbee states in his declaration that he was "continuously confined" in
`
`segregation until February 25, 2022. Dkt. 180 at 1. He also states that he was
`
`placed in another restrictive housing unit at NCCF on February 15, 2021, a few
`
`weeks after his transfer. Id. at 5. Records Mr. Mockbee submitted indicate that
`
`he was placed in a 14-day medical quarantine upon his arrival at NCCF, dkt.
`
`180-1 at 16, and then in the S.T.A.N.D. Unit, id. at 17.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 1593
`
`The record offers little information about the S.T.A.N.D. Unit. The Court
`
`understands that it is a transitional "step-down" unit for inmates who have spent
`
`significant time in administrative segregation. See Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508,
`
`516–17 (7th Cir. 2017) (discussing transitional unit at NCCF); see also dkt. 180-
`
`1 at 27 (discussing transfer to "NCN TU"). Inmates in this unit may complete
`
`programs that are not available in administrative segregation. Isby, 856 F.3d at
`
`516–17. The document noting Mr. Mockbee's arrival at NCCF and placement in
`
`the S.T.A.N.D. Unit sets a goal for him to comply with his case plan and complete
`
`his "next phase book" before his next review. Dkt. 180-1 at 17.
`
`Although Mr. Mockbee alleges that he remained in segregation for another
`
`year, see dkt. 180 at 1, no other evidence in the record clarifies his placement
`
`following his arrival in the S.T.A.N.D. Unit or the reasons for it.
`
`IV.
`Discussion
`
`Mr. Mockbee alleges that he was confined in administrative segregation
`
`without due process and subjected to conditions that violated the Eighth
`
`Amendment. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on
`
`both claims.
`
`A. Fourteenth Amendment Claims
`
`"[I]nmates have no liberty interest in avoiding transfer to discretionary
`
`segregation—that is, segregation imposed for administrative, protective, or
`
`investigative purposes." Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 771 (7th Cir. 2008).
`
`"Of course, administrative segregation may not be used as a pretext for indefinite
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 1594
`
`confinement of an inmate." Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 477 n.9 (1983).
`
`"Prison officials must engage in some sort of periodic review of the confinement
`
`of such inmates." Id.
`
`Due process does not require periodic reviews to be formal or adversarial.
`
`Id. at 472. Inmates are not ordinarily entitled to present evidence or statements.
`
`Id. at 477 n.9. Rather, periodic reviews must be "meaningful," which is to say
`
`they must be "open to the possibility of a different outcome." Isby v. Brown, 856
`
`F.3d 508, 527–28 (7th Cir. 2017). Similarly, due process does not require
`
`custodians to conduct their periodic reviews according to rigid timelines. "The
`
`periodic review need only be sufficiently frequent that administrative segregation
`
`does not become 'a pretext for indefinite confinement of an inmate.'" Westefer v.
`
`Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 686 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 477 n.9).
`
`Otherwise, the frequency of periodic reviews "is committed to the discretion of
`
`the prison officials." Isby, 856 F.3d at 525.
`
`1. Substance of the reviews
`
` Mr. Mockbee's Fourteenth Amendment claims span approximately one
`
`year—from his placement in the RHU at BCF in January 2020 until his transfer
`
`to NCCF in January 2021.2 He received at least six meaningful reviews of his
`
`confinement to administrative segregation during that time, including:
`
`
`2 Although Mr. Mockbee states that he remained in some form of segregation until 2022,
`he filed his complaint in October 2020 and never amended it to add claims concerning
`the conditions or review of his confinement following his transfer to NCCF in early 2021.
`Accordingly, the Court treats Mr. Mockbee's claims as terminating upon that transfer,
`only a few months after he filed his complaint. See dkt. 16 at 2–3 (screening order
`allowing Mr. Mockbee to proceed on administrative segregation claims related to
`Branchville Correctional Facility and WVCF).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 1595
`
`1) Mr. Hendrix's denial of Mr. Mockbee's second classification
`appeal on March 19, 2020. Dkt. 180-1 at 10.
`
`2) Mr. Dugan's assessment of Mr. Mockbee's assignment to DWRH-
`A on March 26. Id. at 14.
`
`3) Mr. Dugan's behavior modification plan report on August 4. Id.
`at 15.
`
`4) The approval later in August for Mr. Mockbee to be released from
`DWRH-A and transferred to a different facility. Id. at 26.
`
`5) Mr. Gilmore's denial of Mr. Mockbee's classification appeal on
`October 5. Id. at 28.
`
`6) Mr. Gilmore's response to Mr. Mockbee's classification appeal on
`October 23. Id. at 27.
`
`These reviews did not result in the outcome Mr. Mockbee desired—
`
`immediate release from segregation, transfer to a lower-security prison, a job,
`
`and enrollment in programs. But they were not perfunctory. They consisted of
`
`more than pre-printed forms or "rote repetition of the same two boilerplate
`
`sentences." Isby, 856 F.3d at 528. In five of the six documents, the author
`
`provided a brief but informative narrative explaining that Mr. Mockbee's
`
`confinement to administrative segregation was based on his numerous and,
`
`typically, very recent conduct violations. See, e.g., dkt. 180-1 at 14 (noting
`
`pending charge). The sixth did not merely demonstrate "the possibility of a
`
`different outcome," Isby, 856 F.3d at 527–28, but actually implemented it by
`
`approving Mr. Mockbee's release from administrative segregation and transfer to
`
`a less restrictive Level 3 facility. Dkt. 180-1 at 26.
`
`Mr. Mockbee's transfer was not completed for another five months. And he
`
`was not released to the general population. However, the decision to transfer Mr.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 1596
`
`Mockbee from administrative segregation to the S.T.A.N.D. Unit at NCCF showed
`
`that the prison staff's reviews of his status were open to multiple outcomes rather
`
`than shams designed to keep him in administrative segregation perpetually. The
`
`post-transfer evidence in the record reinforces this conclusion, as it made clear
`
`that Mr. Mockbee's path to the general population was to continue to complete
`
`the steps of his program and comply with his case plan. Dkt. 180-1 at 17.
`
`The defendants argue that Mr. Mockbee "can produce no admissible
`
`evidence that" the reviews noted above "were not meaningful," dkt. 159 at 8, and
`
`he has produced none. Rather, Mr. Mockbee argues that the Court should find
`
`that the review procedures at WVCF were not constitutionally meaningful for the
`
`same reasons they fell short in Isby.
`
`There, the Seventh Circuit considered similar Fourteenth Amendment due
`
`process claims by a Wabash Valley inmate who had been held in administrative
`
`segregation for over ten years. See 856 F.3d at 515. While Mr. Isby consistently
`
`received written 30-day reviews of his placement, each consisted of the exact
`
`same, uninformative, two-sentence explanation that appeared in the previous
`
`month's review: "Your status has been reviewed and there are no changes
`
`recommended to the Southern Regional Director at this time. Your current
`
`Department-wide Administrative segregation status shall remain in effect unless
`
`otherwise rescinded by the Southern Regional Director." Id. Mr. Isby ostensibly
`
`remained in administrative segregation because of discipline violations, but he
`
`received the same reviews every 30 days despite committing no major conduct
`
`violations for over five years. Id. at 515–16. The court concluded that Mr. Isby
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 1597
`
`"raised triable issues of material fact regarding whether his reviews were
`
`meaningful or pretextual." Isby, 856 F.3d at 529.
`
`The reviews Mr. Mockbee received were materially different from those
`
`described in Isby. Mr. Mockbee's written reviews were not identical and each
`
`clearly articulated the basis for Mr. Mockbee's continued confinement to
`
`administrative segregation, citing his recent or even ongoing disciplinary
`
`violations, not incidents from years earlier. This case therefore falls under Isby's
`
`statement that "[e]ven one or two edits or additions along these lines could
`
`assuage our concerns and provide helpful notice to Isby as to the reasons for his
`
`placement and how he could get out." Id. at 527. Mr. Mockbee's reviews were
`
`consistently edited and provided helpful and unmistakable notice that his path
`
`out of administrative segregation was abstaining from conduct violations.
`
`The eventual outcome of Mr. Mockbee's reviews further sharpens this
`
`contrast. Mr. Isby was considered for transfer to NCCF's transition unit, but the
`
`transfer ultimately was not recommended or executed. Id.at 517. Meanwhile, Mr.
`
`Mockbee's reviews resulted in release from department-wide administrative
`
`segregation, transfer to the S.T.A.N.D. Unit, and a path toward release to a
`
`general population unit.
`
`Given these critical differences in facts, Isby does not support Mr.
`
`Mockbee's claim. Under the evidence designated here, no reasonable jury could
`
`find that his confinement to administrative segregation was meaningfully
`
`reviewed at least six times.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 1598
`
`2. Frequency of the reviews
`
`The defendants also argue that the time between reviews did not violate
`
`the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of "periodic" reviews. Dkt. 159 at 6–7.
`
`Due process does not impose rigid schedules. Rather, reviews "need only be
`
`sufficiently frequent that administrative segregation does not become 'a pretext
`
`for indefinite confinement of an inmate.'" Westefer, 682 F.3d at 686 (quoting
`
`Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 477 n.9). The frequency of these reviews is "committed to
`
`the administrative discretion of the prison officials." Id. (cleaned up).
`
`Viewing the designated evidence in Mr. Mockbee's favor, the longest time
`
`between meaningful reviews for Mr. Mockbee was from March 26 until August
`
`4, barely over four months. Then, Mr. Mockbee received the behavior
`
`modification plan document noting his recent disciplinary infraction. See dkt.
`
`180-1 at 15. Within weeks, he received notice that his classification had been
`
`modified and that he would be released from administrative segregation and
`
`transferred, id. at 26, showing that his reviews were not pretextual and his
`
`confinement to administrative segregation did not have to be indefinite.
`
`Mr. Mockbee nevertheless attacks the frequency of his reviews by arguing
`
`that Indiana law and IDOC policy entitled him to written reviews every 30 days
`
`and additional reviews every 90 days. Deviation from those timelines, however,
`
`does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. "A state ought to follow its law," but
`
`"the violation of state law is not itself the violation of the Constitution." Archie v.
`
`City of Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1217 (7th Cir. 1988). The Court must therefore
`
`"reject" any "attempt to convert a substantive violation of state law into a
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 1599
`
`violation of the United States Constitution." Colon v. Schneider, 899 F.2d 660,
`
`672 (7th Cir. 1990).
`
`The Court does not suggest that a four-month gap between meaningful
`
`reviews will never violate due process, or endorse how Mr. Mockbee's reviews
`
`were handled. Instead, the Court finds that the reviews Mr. Mockbee received—
`
`taken together—were frequent enough to satisfy due process. Over the span of a
`
`year, Mr. Mockbee received at least six meaningful reviews with no gap longer
`
`than a bit more than four months. Midway through that period, the prison staff
`
`determined to release him from administrative segregation and place him in
`
`NCCF's transition program. On this record, no reasonable jury could find that
`
`Mr. Mockbee was subjected to indefinite confinement in segregation or that the
`
`reviews he received were pretextual. See Westefer, 682 F.3d at 868. Therefore,
`
`the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Mockbee's Fourteenth
`
`Amendment claims.
`
` B. Eighth Amendment Claim
`
`Eighth Amendment claims based on long-term confinement in segregation
`
`require the plaintiff to prove two elements. First, "an objective showing that the
`
`conditions are sufficiently serious—i.e., that they deny the inmate 'the minimal
`
`civilized measure of life's necessities,' . . . creating an excessive risk to the
`
`inmate's health and safety." Isby, 856 F.3d at 521 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman,
`
`452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). Second, a "subjective showing of a defendant's
`
`culpable state of mind." Id. (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)).
`
`"'[P]rolonged confinement in administrative segregation may constitute a
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 1600
`
`violation of the Eighth Amendment . . . depending on the duration and nature of
`
`the segregation and whether there were
`
`feasible alternatives to that
`
`confinement.'" Id. (quoting Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650,
`
`666 (7th Cir. 2012)).
`
`Under Isby, a plaintiff pursuing an Eighth Amendment claim in the context
`
`of administrative segregation must clear a high bar to satisfy the objective prong.
`
`In Isby, the factual record was well-developed, showing that:
`
`•
`
`Isby was confined for 23 hours per day in an 80-square-foot cell.
`
`• When he was permitted to leave for recreation, the recreation
`space was often littered with bird droppings or dead birds.
`
`• He was constrained by a "dog leash" when he was allowed to leave
`his cell.
`
`•
`
`Isby received one phone call per week.
`
`• Lights remained on in his cell 24 hours per day.
`
`• Temperatures in his unit fluctuated between extremes.
`
`• He lacked access to clean drinking water and warm clothes and
`bedding.
`
`• He endured these conditions for over ten years.
`
`86 F.3d at 513–15. Even so, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for
`
`the defendants on Mr. Isby's Eighth Amendment claim. Considering these
`
`conditions in the aggregate and over a span of ten years, Mr. Isby could not
`
`demonstrate an extreme deprivation of basic human needs. Id. at 522.
`
`The subjective element is also demanding. The plaintiff must prove that
`
`the defendants "acted with deliberate indifference—that they knew of and
`
`disregarded this excessive risk of harm to the inmate." Thomas v. Blackard, 2
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 1601
`
`F.4th 716, 719 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828). A plaintiff
`
`cannot prove deliberate indifference by showing only that the defendants were
`
`"aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk
`
`of serious harm exists." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (emphasis added). Rather, the
`
`plaintiff must also show that the defendant actually drew the inference. Id. A
`
`"prisoner's bare assertion is not enough to make the [defendant] subjectively
`
`aware of a risk, if the objective indicators do not substantiate the inmate's
`
`assertion." Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 528 (7th Cir. 2004).
`
`Here, the designated evidence does not allow a reasonable jury to find an
`
`Eighth Amendment violation. First, Mr. Mockbee fails to designate evidence
`
`regarding the conditions he experienced in administrative segregation as he
`
`must in response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Beardsall v.
`
`CVS Pharmacy, 953 F.3d 969, 972 (7th Cir. 2020) (discussing nature of non-
`
`movant's burden in response to properly supported motion for summary
`
`judgment). His declaration and the records attached to it address the basis for
`
`his confinement in administrative segregation and his custodians' reviews of that
`
`placement, but a few statements in his verified complaint is the only evidence of
`
`the conditions of confinement—restrictions on out-of-cell time, recreation, or
`
`interaction with other prisoners. From this evidence, no jury could conclude
`
`that those conditions deprived Mr. Mockbee of the necessities of a civilized life
`
`or created an excessive risk to his health or safety. Dkt. 159 at 10.
`
`Next, Mr. Mockbee does not "go beyond the pleadings" to support his
`
`contentions. Beardsall, 953 F.3d at 972. His verified complaint attests that he
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 1602
`
`was confined to his cell 24 hours per day but acknowledges that he was
`
`permitted to leave on certain occasions; when he left, he was shackled; he ate
`
`his meals alone, and they were cold and unhealthy. Dkt. 2 at 10. But it is not
`
`clear whether Mr. Mockbee faced these conditions throughout his year in
`
`administrative segregation or whether his conditions changed between facilities.
`
`Even crediting his verified complaint, the record pales in comparison to Isby in
`
`terms of volume and specificity of evidence and the duration of the conditions
`
`described. Like Mr. Isby, Mr. Mockbee has failed to pave a way for a reasonable
`
`jury to find that he was deprived of the basic necessities of civilization. 86 F.3d
`
`at 522.
`
`Last, Mr. Mockbee designates no evidence of subjective intent. The record
`
`includes only minimal evidence of the conditions he faced in administrative
`
`segregation. It includes no designated evidence concerning any defendant's role
`
`in implementing, enforcing, or maintaining those conditions. So even if a jury
`
`could reasonably find that Mr. Mockbee suffered an extreme deprivation, it would
`
`have no basis to find that any defendant was subjectively aware that Mr.
`
`Mockbee faced a serious risk of harm.
`
`In sum, the record lacks any evidence from which a reasonable jury could
`
`find that any defendant has violated Mr. Mockbee's Eighth Amendment rights.
`
`The defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00536-JPH-MG Document 183 Filed 09/29/23 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 1603
`
`V.
`Conclusion
`
`The defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [155], is granted. The
`
`clerk is directed to enter final judgment consistent with this order and the
`
`screening order, dkt. 16.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`BRANDON ANTHONY MOCKBEE
`262691
`PLAINFIELD – CF
`PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
`PLAINFIELD, IN 46168
`Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
`
`Carlton Wayne Anker
`Lewis and Wilkins LLP
`anker@lewisandwilkins.com
`
`Eric Ryan Shouse
`Lewis And Wilkins LLP
`shouse@lewisandwilkins.com
`
`
`
`19
`
`Date: 9/29/2023
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
