Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 46 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome )

Jones, individually and on behalf of a class of )

all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

) ) Case No. _1_:_1__5_-_c_v_-_5596
)

) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

v.

)

Gladyse C. Taylor, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections,

) ) )

Defendant.

)

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NATURE OF THIS ACTION 1. Plaintiffs are all individuals who have been or are currently transferred from general prison population into segregation. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all prisoners who are subjected to harmful punitive isolation sentences and who are or who will be confined in Illinois’ prisons. The practice of punishing incarcerated individuals by transferring them from the general prison population to extreme isolation has long been shown to cause severe risk of grave physical and psychological harm. Regardless of its label—solitary confinement, disciplinary segregation, investigative status, or administrative detention— extensive research shows that the practice of subjecting individuals to extreme isolation causes pain, suffering, psychological and emotional trauma, physical injury, and, in extreme cases, death. Moreover, the practice of punishing incarcerated individuals by subjecting them to extended periods of extreme isolation has long been viewed by courts, prison authorities, bar

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 2 of 46 PageID #:2
associations, and United Nations commissions on torture as a practice to be avoided in all but the most limited cases where the individual presents a credible and continuing serious threat to others or himself.
2. The State of Illinois, however, does not restrict the use of extreme isolation to such limited circumstances. Instead, the State of Illinois, as a matter of custom and practice, arbitrarily, capriciously, and routinely uses extreme isolation as means of punishing even the most minor prison infractions. Shockingly, as of June 30, 2013, approximately 2,300 residents of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) were serving extreme isolation sentences. See Exhibit A, Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population Chart, dated June 30, 2013. Of these 2,300 individuals, 680 individuals were serving extreme isolation sentences of more than a year, and 218 individuals were serving sentences of more than ten years. See Exhibit B, Segregation Sentence Imposed Compared to the Actual Length of Stay in Segregation, dated June 30, 2013. At Illinois’ maximum security prisons, approximately 1,400 individuals, constituting approximately 15% of Illinois’ maximum security prison population, were held in extreme isolation as of June 30, 2013. See Exhibit A. Of these 1,400 individuals, 654 individuals were serving extreme isolation sentences of more than a year, and 208 individuals were serving sentences of more than ten years. See Exhibit B.
3. Individuals sentenced to extreme isolation are held in tiny, often windowless cages far smaller than even the already tiny general population cells. Led in shackles to these tiny, filthy, cold, and barren cages, these individuals are stripped of their dignity and rendered lifeless for months and years on end. Held in isolation for 23 hours or more a day, with virtually around-the-clock surveillance, these individuals are deprived of meaningful social interaction and any ability to engage in any meaningful or productive physical or mental activity, including
2

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 3 of 46 PageID #:3
educational programs. Moreover, corrections officers may impose additional punishment by depriving individuals in extreme isolation of what little remains—access to nourishment and edible food, exercise, showers, bedding, and personal effects (including their clothing) may all be arbitrarily denied and/or taken away.
4. This practice is cruel, inhumane, offensive to basic human decency, and in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiffs (who themselves are held by IDOC in extreme isolation, i.e., segregation) bring this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons. In this action, Plaintiffs challenge the State of Illinois’ policies and customs, which place every individual incarcerated in Illinois at risk of being subjected to extraordinarily long and severely harmful extreme segregation sentences. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the unconstitutional use of extreme isolation punishment. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Plaintiffs and this class bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because some Plaintiffs reside at Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”), which is located in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims bought by plaintiffs and the class have occurred in this District.
3

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 4 of 46 PageID #:4
PARTIES 8. Named Plaintiffs Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, and Jerome Jones are
individuals who have been or are currently incarcerated at facilities under IDOC’s custody and control.
9. Douglas Coleman is a 55-year old African-American man, currently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center. During his time at Stateville, he was sentenced to six months in segregation, but ultimately spent eight months in segregation after receiving 60 extra days because of two disciplinary tickets, discussed below from 2013 to 2014. He was housed in FHouse, cell 135. During Mr. Coleman’s time in segregation, he suffered from unbearable living conditions and physical injuries because authorities failed to accommodate his physical disabilities in the shower.
10. Plaintiff Aaron Fillmore is a 40-year-old Caucasian man, currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center and is currently in extreme isolation. Mr. Fillmore has spent the last 15 years in extreme isolation. During that time, Mr. Fillmore has continuously been in either segregation, Administrative Detention, or Investigate Status, all of which are ultimately extreme isolation. Mr. Fillmore has not been provided with a meaningful opportunity to defend himself against the charges which have kept him in isolation for 15 years—and during much of this time, he has not even been given meaningful notice of what he did wrong to warrant such extreme and extended isolation. During most of that time, Mr. Fillmore has had little to no physical contact with other people and has suffered mentally as a result. Mr. Fillmore’s earliest release date is 2038.
11. Plaintiff Jerome Jones is a 38-year-old African-American man of Moorish nationality, currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center in Administrative Detention segregation. He is in “Phase III” of Administrative Detention—meaning he has not violated any
4

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 5 of 46 PageID #:5
rules for many months. Mr. Jones was removed from the general population of Stateville Correctional Center for reasons unknown to him on July 25, 2013, and was then transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center on August 30, 2013. Despite not receiving a disciplinary ticket since 2001, Mr. Jones has never been able to successfully challenge the false accusation of his alleged gang association he later learned had put him in Administrative Detention in 2013 at Stateville. Mr. Jones, not a member of any alleged gang, continues to suffer from his lack of inmate privileges including decreased visitation and eating meals only in his cell. Mr. Jones’ earliest release date is 2041.
12. Defendant Gladyse C. Taylor is the Acting Director of IDOC. Acting Director Taylor has final policy-making authority within IDOC, and is personally involved in authorizing and maintaining the unconstitutional policies and customs challenged by Plaintiffs. Acting Director Taylor is sued in her official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief. FACTS The Severe Risk of Harm Caused by Extreme Isolation
13. The practice of punishing incarcerated individuals by transferring them from the general prison population to extreme isolation has long been shown to cause severe risk of grave physical and psychological harm. Documented physical and physiological harms caused by forced isolation include suicide, self-harm, cardiovascular and genito-urinary complications, tremulousness, gastro-intestinal impairment, heart palpitations, insomnia, migraines, loss of appetite, weight loss, deteriorated vision, sudden excessive perspiration, back and joint ailments, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, and lethargy.
14. Psychologically, extreme isolation may cause many severe conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, hallucinations, severe and chronic depression, depersonalization, social withdrawal, confusion, apathy, anxiety, heightened nervousness, night terrors, panic
5

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 6 of 46 PageID #:6
attacks, irrational anger, rage, loss of impulse control, paranoia, claustrophobia, concentration and memory deficiencies, and perceptual distortions. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, while speaking before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and Federal Government, “[s]olitary confinement literally drives men mad.” O’Connor, Lydia, HuffingtonPost.com, “Justice Anthony Kennedy: Solitary Confinement ‘Literally Drives Men Mad,’” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/24/anthony-kennedy-solitaryconfinement_n_6934550.html?ir=Chicago&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000059 (last visited March 30, 2015).
15. For healthy individuals, the combined physical and psychological effects caused by forced isolation can result in grave harm even after short periods of segregated confinement. When the duration of confinement extends beyond days and into weeks, months, or years, however, the consequences can be devastating, permanent, and even deadly. This is particularly the case when individuals with preexisting physical and mental health conditions are subjected to extended periods of isolation. Many States (But Not Illinois) Recognize the Severe Harm Caused by Extreme Isolation and Have Adopted Policies and Standards to Protect Against Such Harm
16. Precisely because extreme isolation engenders such a significant risk of severe physical and psychological harm and stands as an affront to the basic notions of human dignity, almost all states have long prohibited its imposition as punishment for a criminal offense. Moreover, many states and bar associations have adopted policies to protect against the unnecessary physical and psychological harms caused by extreme isolation. For example, after a government study determined that tighter controls were necessary to protect against the overuse of segregation, the State of Maine passed reforms that cut its segregation population in half and expanded access to social stimulation for prisoners placed in segregation. Correctional leaders in
6

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 7 of 46 PageID #:7
Michigan have also implemented programs to reduce the duration of isolation sentences and the number of prisoners subject to isolation. The New York Bar Association, noting the serious risk of physical and psychological harm caused by extreme isolation, has adopted a resolution advocating that, if segregated confinement is to be used at all, it should only be imposed for a number of days—not years, months, or even weeks. The New York Bar Association further found long-term segregated confinement to be constitute a counterproductive, unnecessary infliction of pain. National and International Authorities Also Have Adopted Standards and Policies to Protect Against the Harm Caused By Extreme Isolation
17. The American Bar Association has promulgated standards to ensure that prisoners are not unnecessarily subjected to the severe physical and psychological harm caused by extreme isolation. As a threshold matter, the ABA standards require that prisoners be separated from the general population only after a finding that (1) the individual committed a severe disciplinary infraction in which safety or security was seriously threatened, or (2) the individual presents a credible and continuing serious threat to others or himself. In order to protect against the unnecessary and unjustified harm caused by forced isolation, the ABA standards abolish extreme isolation under any circumstances, requiring that any isolation imposed on a prisoner be for the briefest term and under the least restrictive conditions possible.
18. Human rights organizations and authorities have also found that adequate minimum safeguards are absolutely necessary to protect against the severe harms caused by extreme isolation. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, for example, has concluded that the use of solitary confinement for punitive purposes can never be justified, given the disproportionate magnitude of suffering it imposes. Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur has held that more than 15 days in solitary confinement amounts to torturous, cruel, and unusual
7

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 8 of 46 PageID #:8
punishment. For this reason, the UN Special Rapporteur recommends that such sentences be abolished in all cases, even where isolation is determined to be absolutely necessary for protecting the safety of prisoners and staff. Similarly, the UN General Assembly has called for an “absolute abolition” of the use of extreme isolation as punishment, and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has recommended that, due to its potentially hazardous effects, extreme isolation only be used as punishment in exceptional cases and for the shortest period of time possible.
19. As reflected by these various authorities and organizations, the overwhelming consensus has determined that if isolation is to be used at all, sufficient minimum protocols and safeguards are absolutely necessary to ensure that it is only used as a last resort and, even then, that it is only used for a short amount of time and under strict controls. Illinois Is A Rogue Governmental Entity When It Comes To The Use of Extreme Isolation As A Means of Punishment
20. In derogation of national and international standards, Illinois uses extreme isolation as a disciplinary tool of the first resort with astonishing frequency and length for the violation of any one of approximately 50 internal prison regulations, the majority of which can be classified as relatively minor offenses. As of June 30, 2013, IDOC maintains over 3,000 segregation beds, which are used to separate individuals from the general prison population and subject them to punishing forms of extreme isolation and deprivation. See Exhibit A. Approximately 2,300 of these segregation beds were occupied by individuals as of June 30, 2013. Id. Of these 2,300 individuals, 680 individuals were serving segregation sentences of more than one year and 218 individuals were serving segregation sentences of more than ten years. See Exhibit B. In fact, despite the closing of IDOC’s Tamms Correctional Center, which
8

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 9 of 46 PageID #:9
eliminated 168 individuals from segregation, IDOC’s overall segregation population increased by 257 individuals from June 30, 2012, to June 30, 2013. See Exhibit A.
21. The frequency with which IDOC uses extreme isolation as punishment is a direct consequence of the system-wide policies and customs governing the conduct and punishment of all individuals incarcerated throughout the Illinois prison system. In contrast to the clearly defined standards and criteria discussed above, Illinois permits the use of extreme isolation as punishment for conduct that poses no threat to the safety of its prisoners or the security of its correctional facilities. Illinois also imposes segregation sentences for extraordinary and disproportionate lengths of time that have no connection to any legitimate penological rationale or even to the seriousness of the offense committed. Defendant Acting Director Taylor was and is personally involved in authorizing and continuing the unconstitutional policies and customs described below.
22. IDOC has promulgated numerous internal regulations governing every aspect of the behavior of individuals incarcerated in Illinois state prisons. Disciplinary offenses are defined in Appendix A to Section 504.20 of Title 20 of the Illinois Administrative Code. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.20 (West 2015). These offenses cover a wide range of conduct from assault or possession of dangerous weapons to “disregarding basic hygiene” and include violations of facility rules. 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504, App. A (West 2015).
23. If one of IDOC’s employees believes that an individual has violated any of these rules, he or she must prepare a “disciplinary report” or an “investigative report.” These reports document the alleged behavior and list any witnesses. He or she may orally reprimand the individual if the offense is one of those listed in the 400 series of Appendix A. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.30 (West 2015).
9

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 10 of 46 PageID #:10
24. Both before and after a disciplinary report or an investigative report is prepared, the shift supervisor can decide whether to place the individual in “temporary confinement” pending the issuance of a report or a disciplinary hearing. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.40 (West 2015).
25. A “reviewing officer” is then assigned to (1) review the placement of an individual in temporary confinement, (2) interview those individuals receiving an investigative report, and (3) review an individual’s disciplinary report. When reviewing a disciplinary report, a reviewing officer must determine whether the offense committed is “major or minor in nature.” See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.50 (West 2015). All those offenses listed in the 100, 200, or 500 series of Appendix A are considered major offenses. Those offenses listed in the 300 or 400 series may be designated as either minor or major offenses. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.50(d)(3) (West 2015).
26. All major offenses are assigned to the “adjustment committee” for a hearing while all minor offenses are assigned to the “program unit” for a hearing. Those reports or offenses classified as major offenses are eligible for placement in segregation if found guilty. A vast number of these “major” offenses involve nonviolent and non-disruptive behavior or actions that pose little to no threat to the safety of the prisoners or the security of the facilities. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.80(k)(4)(H).
27. IDOC’s policies and regulations offer minimal guidance to a reviewing officer’s review of investigative and disciplinary reports as well as a prisoner’s placement in temporary confinement. IDOC’s policies and regulations fail to provide incarcerated individuals with an explanation of the types of conduct that may result in more or less severe classification. These same policies and regulations fail to provide notice to incarcerated individuals of the potential
10

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 11 of 46 PageID #:11
segregation sentencing ranges if found guilty of a violation of IDOC’s rules, including facility rules.
28. Individuals charged with major offenses are afforded an extremely limited “hearing,” with minimal process, to adjudicate their guilt. IDOC employees with many other work responsibilities often act as adjustment committee members. With respect to adjudicating guilt, adjustment committee members are permitted to credit the testimony of corrections staff over that of a prisoner. The prisoner can be denied the opportunity to present his own evidence. The prisoner is denied the right to question or confront adverse witnesses. The prisoner can even be denied the ability to know the identity of the witnesses. Prisoners can be, and frequently are, convicted of offenses based only on the disputed word of a single corrections officer following a “hearing” in the hallway outside the prisoner’s cell.
29. Segregation is also imposed on individuals without a hearing and even without notice, as a form of “nondisciplinary status of confinement.” 20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.660 (West 2015). This status is referred to as “administrative detention.” Id.
30. Individuals are placed in administrative detention at the discretion of the Chief Administrative Officer (commonly known as “Warden”) with almost no review or opportunity for the individual to contest the allegations. 20 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 504.660(a), (b), and (c).
31. Review of the individual’s placement in administrative detention need only be reviewed every 90 days and individuals may remain in that status indefinitely. 20 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 504.660(a) and (c).
32. IDOC’s policies permit and encourage segregation sentences for behavior that demonstrates no risk of harm to the general prisoner population or to IDOC’s employees. A substantial number of segregation sentences are for this type of behavior. For example, from
11

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 12 of 46 PageID #:12
January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2008, only 15% of sentences to extreme isolation involved offenses that implicated violent conduct or possession of dangerous contraband. See Exhibit C, Quantitative Findings on Use and Outcomes of Segregation in IL DOC, dated September 28, 2011. Furthermore, IDOC employees punitively imposed segregation sentences for the following behaviors:
a. Over 500 segregation sentences involving “damage or misuse of property”; b. Approximately 300 segregation sentences involving “intimidations or threats”; c. Approximately 150 segregation sentences involving possession of “drugs or drug
paraphernalia”; d. Over 1,500 segregation sentences for “unauthorized movement”; e. Over 1,300 segregation sentences involving “insolence”; f. Over 800 segregation sentences for “non-dangerous contraband”; g. Over 1,600 segregation sentences for “violation of rules”; h. Over 1,500 segregation sentences for “disobeying a direct order”; and i. Approximately 500 segregation sentences for “failure to report.” Id. 33. IDOC’s policies and customs regarding sentencing are a key factor in the arbitrary and inconsistent punishments that occur within IDOC’s facilities. IDOC’s policies and regulations are plainly inadequate and fail to provide guidance in order to ensure consistent and proportionate disciplinary outcomes. 34. With respect to sentence length, IDOC’s policies provide no mandatory sentence ranges. Instead, IDOC’s policies provide for maximum penalties for each offense. The maximum penalties, however, permit disproportionate and arbitrary sentencing to segregation. An individual in possession of a package of cigarettes, for example, could be sentenced to up to
12

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 13 of 46 PageID #:13
three months of extreme isolation. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504. Tbl. A (West 2015). Furthermore, IDOC’s policies fail to place any upper limit on the number of consecutive segregation sentences that an individual may be forced to serve. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.110(b) (West 2015). Thus, individual segregation sentences of 30 days for nonviolent behavior may have the practical effect of ensuring that the prisoner spends months or even years confined in extreme isolation. In addition, indeterminate periods of segregation are frequently allowed and enforced. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.115 (West 2015).
35. IDOC’s policies provide vague and generic guidance or criteria for when segregation should be imposed as a disciplinary action. There is no articulation of the rationale for imposing such extreme isolation or for the length of time of each segregation sentence. Instead, segregation sentences are often routinely authorized and imposed without adequate explanations as a matter of policy and custom. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.20(b) and 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.80(k)(4)(H) (West 2015).
36. Moreover, IDOC’s policies permit employees to impose segregation as punishment without taking into account factors that might make such extreme isolation particularly disproportionate, painful, and harmful. IDOC employees are permitted to impose segregation sentences on the most vulnerable individuals, e.g., individuals with a history of mental illness, individuals with daily medical needs, and the elderly.
37. Once an individual begins serving his or her segregation sentence, IDOC’s policies allow lengthy confinements without any subsequent individualized reviews to determine whether it is still necessary to keep that individual in segregation. Nor do IDOC’s policies require that officials periodically evaluate whether the segregation sentence may be causing the individual increasingly severe and grave harm. Even indeterminate segregation sentences are
13

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 14 of 46 PageID #:14
only required to be reviewed once during the first year and once every 180 days thereafter. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.115 (West 2015).
38. IDOC’s policies and customs governing post-sentencing review of disciplinary actions fail to ensure any consistent or meaningful relief from grossly disproportionate segregation sentences. New proceedings are only granted if the original proceeding were found to be “defective” on four bases. No further guidance is offered by IDOC’s policies in making this determination of defectiveness. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.90 (West 2015). Furthermore, requests to reduce an individual’s segregation sentence can be unilaterally denied without any explanation. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.120 (West 2015).
39. All of the above policies work in conjunction with customs that have the force of formal policy throughout the IDOC system, tolerating and encouraging needlessly and purposefully harmful segregation sentences for all forms of behavior, no matter how minor or nonthreatening. Lacking any adequate policies and procedures, IDOC’s employees impose unjustified and arbitrary punishments that are customarily authorized, ratified, and enforced system-wide.
40. In combination, IDOC’s policies and customs result in unjustified, inconsistent, and harmful segregation sentences. Individuals receive lengthy sentences that are grossly disproportionate as compared to the underlying misbehavior. Similarly situated prisoners receive inconsistent, often vastly different, sentences for similar misconduct. African-American prisoners are more likely to receive segregation sentences, and to receive longer segregation sentences, as compared to individuals of other racial or ethnic groups.
41. Acting Director Taylor has final policy-making and supervisory authority within IDOC. As director, and pursuant to Illinois law, she is aware of and has ultimate authority with
14

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 15 of 46 PageID #:15
regard to all of IDOC’s internal rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and customs. According to the IDOC’s website, Acting Director Taylor and her staff are “committed to reducing recidivism, operating a safe and secure prison system as well as enhancing prison-based treatment, prevention programs and the successful reentry of inmates into society.”
42. Defendant Acting Director Taylor was and is personally involved in authorizing and maintaining the disciplinary policies, procedures, and customs detailed in this complaint, and their consequences and effects. She has the responsibility to review and evaluate IDOC’s disciplinary policies and the authority to adopt, amend, or revise them.
43. Defendant is aware of the harm caused by IDOC’s existing disciplinary policies and customs. Defendant is aware that segregation causes pain, suffering, mental deterioration, and physical injury. IDOC had statistical evidence and data that demonstrate the arbitrary, inconsistent, and grossly disproportionate segregation sentences caused by its inadequate policies and customs. See Exhibits A, B and C; see also Exhibit D, Various Segregation Charts, dated from September 30, 2009, to December 31, 2012. Defendant is also aware that segregation sentences are often imposed for offenses that pose no threat to prison safety or security, and for lengths of time that far exceed any legitimate punitive goal and do little more than inflict unnecessary pain and an unjustified risk of harm. Id.
44. Defendant is aware of the consequences of IDOC’s policies and customs as the result of numerous communications to them from outside organizations and entities, including the study conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice (“Vera Institute”) on or around September 2011. See Exhibit E, Memorandum of Understanding Between the Illinois Department of Corrections and The Vera Institute of Justice, dated May 2010, and Exhibit F, Reducing Prisoner
15

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 16 of 46 PageID #:16
Isolation: An Innovative Approach to Classification and Management of Segregation, Control Units, and Supermax, undated.
45. Specifically, the Vera Institute, an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit center for justice policy and practice, found, among other things, that (1) “[t]he conduct exhibited by prisoners admitted to [Disciplinary Segregation] and [Administrative Detention Segregation] warrants sanctions, but it is not clear that the types of placement and lengths of stay are proportionate to prior and current negative behavior;” (2) “[t]he conditions of confinement in [Disciplinary Segregation] are not acceptable with respect to recreation, showers, mental health treatment, or contacts with clinical-services staff, and are not in line with best or standard practices in other systems;” (3) [t]here is a need to standardize key policies and program attributes for [Disciplinary Segregation] and [Administrative Detention Segregation] across the system; (4) “[t]he proportion of women in [Disciplinary Segregation] is almost twice that of men;” and (5) “[a] signification portion of the [Disciplinary Segregation] population has segregation time that exceeds their time left to serve.” Exhibit G, IDOC Segregation Study Major Findings, undated (emphasis added).
46. Defendant is also aware of a pattern of deficiencies through complaints that they have received through prisoner grievances and civil litigation.
47. Defendant has long been aware that IDOC’s disciplinary procedures fail to provide many of the minimum safeguards recommended by correctional, legal, mental health, and human rights experts. The certainty that these policies and customs have and will continue to lead to unjustified and harmful segregation sentences is plain from the lack of adequate guidance contained in IDOC’s written policies themselves, and the fact that IDOC’s employees
16

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 17 of 46 PageID #:17
customarily impose segregation sentences far exceeding even the minimal guidance that is provided.
48. The extraordinary length of segregation sentences imposed by IDOC – approximately half of the sentences imposed on those in segregation as of June 30, 2013, were for more than three months, some five to ten times longer than the maximum allowable time recommended by mental health, legal, and human rights experts—serves no legitimate penological justification. In fact, the overwhelming evidence from other state corrections systems, as well as the Vera Institute study, is that the use of punitive extreme isolation exacerbates physical violence and psychological harms for both incarcerated individuals and corrections staff, and that it is counterproductive to legitimate penological goals such as prison safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation. See Exhibits A-G.
49. Implementing procedural safeguards, such as adopting adequate criteria designed to ensure proportionality and curtail the length of segregation sentences, to avoid the risk of harm for vulnerable prisoners, and to provide notice to prisoners and staff of the length of segregation that may be imposed as punishment for particular behaviors, would significantly protect against the risk of erroneous deprivations of the most fundamental constitutional rights, and would not unduly interfere with Defendant’s legitimate interests.
50. Despite all of the above, Defendant personally authorized these policies and customs although they have the authority, ability, and ultimate responsibility to ensure IDOC’s policies and customs do not inflict unnecessary and avoidable harm on individuals incarcerated in Illinois prisons. By continuing these policies and practices, Defendant is responsible for the systemic and ongoing violations of the constitutional rights of individuals incarcerated in Illinois prisons, including the harms suffered by each of the Plaintiffs, as described below.
17

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 18 of 46 PageID #:18
Douglas Coleman 51. Mr. Coleman was sentenced to six months in segregation, but ultimately spent eight months in segregation during 2013 and early 2014, after receiving 60 extra days because of two additional disciplinary tickets. He was housed in F-House, cell 135. 52. Mr. Coleman’s segregation sentence was a result of alcohol found in his cell. Mr. Coleman said it was his cellmate’s, but he took the fall for it because his cellmate had cancer and he did not want his cellmate to go to segregation. 53. Mr. Coleman reported that the conditions in segregation included roaches, mice, and birds flying inside the unit. At times, there were even insects and mice in the food. Even when the food was not tainted by insects and rodents, it was of low quality and the inmates were given very small portions. He had to “sleep with one eye open” because of the mice. In winter, the broken windows and missing window panes made the cell unbearably cold. No one was allowed to put blankets on the windows to cover the broken panes and prevent cold air from coming into the cell and doing so would result in additional disciplinary tickets. 54. An inmate known to be mentally disturbed was placed in Mr. Coleman’s cell with him despite the fact that mentally disturbed patients were supposed to be housed in single cells. Mr. Coleman feared the inmate and requested a single cell because he felt that he was in danger, but no action was taken. 55. Confined to a wheelchair due to a stroke that occurred before he was placed in segregation, Mr. Coleman suffers from limited mobility. The stroke also necessitated the use of a colostomy bag. While in segregation, the officers forced Mr. Coleman to clean the showers before and after using them. This was difficult and dangerous because of Mr. Coleman’s physical condition and often led to painful falls. On one occasion, Mr. Coleman fell in the
18

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 19 of 46 PageID #:19
shower and laid on the floor in pain for hours while the officers laughed at him. The officers eventually dragged Mr. Coleman out of the shower and took him to the medical unit, where a nurse refused to treat him. Mr. Coleman returned to his cell in terrible pain, and after his cellmate called for help, he was finally given pain relievers. To date, Mr. Coleman has received no medical attention despite still suffering from pain from the fall.
56. Mr. Coleman has filed at least 15 grievances since 2012 complaining of the conditions in segregation and the poor treatment he has received from the officers in segregation. For all 15 of the grievances, the Plaintiffs possess documentation of denials by the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”), demonstrating that Mr. Coleman exhausted his remedies by appealing the denials as far as he could. Nearly all decisions by the ARB stated that the issues were resolved or could not be resolved by the ARB. Each decision was issued many months after the initial grievance and one decision came over 16 months after Mr. Coleman had filed the grievance.
57. On August 1, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance stating that on that same day he had been told by an officer that he could not take a shower unless he cleaned the shower himself. The officer also told him that he was not to have a wheelchair. Although Mr. Coleman explained to the officer that he had a medical permit for the wheelchair to go to the shower, the officer denied him its use. It also stated that Mr. Coleman needed to clean his colostomy bag, but was afraid to do so for fear of angering his cellmate. Mr. Coleman, therefore, requested a single cell. Finally, Mr. Coleman requested that the officers be held accountable for their actions.
58. The grievance was denied on October 3, 2013, by the grievance counselor, who stated simply that Mr. Coleman did not have a permit for the wheelchair and that “[t]he showers
19

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 20 of 46 PageID #:20
are cleaned daily.” Mr. Coleman appealed this decision, and on December 18, 2014 (more than 16 months after Mr. Coleman filed the grievance), the ARB responded. The ARB found that Mr. Coleman’s grievance had been appropriately addressed by the grievance counselor. Neither decision addressed the behavior by the officers.
59. On August 21, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that on August 14, 2013, while he was trying to clean the shower in “F House” segregation, he slipped, hitting his head and injuring his back. Mr. Coleman had been told by the officers that if he did not clean the showers, he would not be allowed to take one. Mr. Coleman had gone two weeks without taking a shower, but finally needed to clean his colostomy bag and was forced to use the shower. Lt. Bell, one of the officers in charge of the segregation unit, accused him of falling to get out of cleaning the shower. Nurses made snide remarks and laughed and joked about Mr. Coleman’s misfortune. Mr. Coleman lay on the shower floor for what felt like an hour before the officers finally took him to the emergency room. When they did so, the officers slammed Mr. Coleman to a gurney and roughly handcuffed him to it. Mr. Coleman requested simply that a full investigation be done into the incident, that the officers responsible (including Lt. Bell) be punished, that he be compensated for his injuries, and that he be free from reprisals. This grievance does not appear to have even been addressed by the counselor.
60. The next day, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that on July 25, 2013, he had asked an F-House officer to allow him the use of his wheelchair so that he could make it to the shower. The officer’s response was “you can walk!” Mr. Coleman requested merely to know who had made the decision that he was not to have a wheelchair. The grievance counselor denied this grievance, stating that per the Health Care Unit (“HCU”), Mr. Coleman was not to have a wheelchair and that “[o]ffender is able to walk.” The same day, Mr. Coleman filed an
20

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 21 of 46 PageID #:21
additional grievance alleging disrespectful and threatening behavior by a nurse and requested a verbal apology. This grievance does not appear to have even been addressed by the counselor or the ARB.
61. On August 23, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that he stopped two officers and asked about getting a wheelchair. One officer said that he was still looking for a wheelchair. Mr. Coleman asked that they simply call HCU and ask for one, and the officers responded rudely and walked away. Mr. Coleman requested that the officers be trained in dealing with patients in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The grievance counselor found that Mr. Coleman should not be issued a wheelchair.
62. On August 30, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance stating that the day before, he had informed an officer that he wanted his medical shower and would like a wheelchair to make it to the shower. The officer informed Mr. Coleman that he could walk. Mr. Coleman detailed in the grievance that he was in pain and suffered from headaches, dizziness, and weakness in his legs such that he was unable to stand for more than a couple of minutes. Mr. Coleman simply requested that a wheelchair be provided to allow him to make it to the shower. The grievance counselor responded that Mr. Coleman was not assigned to a wheelchair.
63. On December 18, 2014 (again about 16 months after the grievances were filed), the ARB issued a response to Mr. Coleman’s appeals of the denials of his grievances from: August 22, 2013 (it is unclear whether this denial also addresses Mr. Coleman’s August 21 grievance, which was filed together with the August 22 grievance); August 23, 2013; August 30, 2013; and September 27, 2013. The response denied all four of Mr. Coleman’s grievances, simply stating that Mr. Coleman’s “grievance was appropriately addressed by HCU staff.”
21

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 22 of 46 PageID #:22
64. On August 27, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that the segregation nurse had denied him the use of his quad cane, advising him that he could use a crutch instead. Mr. Coleman responded that he would be unable to use the crutch and advised the nurse that he had been prescribed the quad cane and issued a permit to use it. The grievance counselor’s response is dated October 8, 2013. The counselor stated that this was a duplicate grievance and that the HCU had not authorized Mr. Coleman to have the quad cane. On the side of the grievance, a note is written in what does not appear to be Mr. Coleman’s handwriting. The note says “ST RECEIVED 03-01-14” (likely “FIRST RECEIVED 03-01-14” if not for a copying error). On August 21, 2014, the ARB denied Mr. Coleman’s appeal, stating that the grievance was “[n]ot submitted in the timeframe outlined in Department Rule 504; therefore, this issue will not be addressed further.” The response also stated that the ARB had previously addressed the issue. This response seems unfair to Mr. Coleman when it is taken into account that he filed the grievance the same day as the incident, and that the ARB seems to have received his grievance many months after it was filed through no fault of Mr. Coleman.
65. On September 27, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance stating that the officers ignored his medical pass to see the doctor. Mr. Coleman also requested and was denied the use of a wheelchair to get to the shower. At one time, Mr. Coleman had been able to hobble to the shower by clutching the railing, but was no longer able to do that since his fall when he was forced to clean the shower. Mr. Coleman requested that he be provided access to the doctor when he had a pass, as well as use of a wheelchair to get to the shower. The grievance counselor responded that “[n]o Stateville employee, security or non-security, can simply choose to cancel or ignore a medical pass.” The counselor also noted that the wheelchair request was a duplicated grievance and that Mr. Coleman did not have a permit for a wheelchair. On December 14, 2014,
22

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 23 of 46 PageID #:23
the ARB responded to the grievance, saying that it was denied “in accordance with AD05.03.103A (Monetary Compensation for Inmate Assignments),” which is curious because Mr. Coleman did not request the relief of monetary compensation. The response also noted that it “was verified offender was seen by Dr. Obaisi on 11/13/13 moot issue.” To sum up, the prison’s response to officers denying Mr. Coleman access to medical treatment for which he had a pass was to inform him that Stateville employees cannot choose to ignore the pass and to declare the issue moot because he was able to see a doctor more than 45 days later.
66. On October 26, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that he had asked an officer for a medical shower and had not received one. The officers told him that he was being denied showers because he threw feces all over the shower. Mr. Coleman suffers from a medical disorder necessitating the use of a colostomy bag. His options for cleaning the bag (necessary to prevent infection) were to clean it in the shower or in his cell. Doing so in his cell would anger his cellmate and result in unsanitary living conditions for both parties. Yet the officers refused Mr. Coleman the use of the shower because he cleaned his bag there. The grievance counselor responded to this grievance by stating that this was a “re-occuring (sic) theme in each grievance” and that a “copy is being sent to the HCU (again) for review and response.” The counselor stated that Mr. Coleman would get a response when the HCU responded. On September 18, 2014, the grievance was denied by the ARB because it was “appropriately addressed by the grievance officer.” It is unclear what, if anything, the grievance officer did to address the grievance, as Mr. Coleman continued to have problems with access to the showers in segregation.
67. On December 18, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that he had requested a medical shower and did not receive it. Mr. Coleman stated that he normally would
23

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 24 of 46 PageID #:24
have reminded Lt. Sullivan, but the last time he had done so, Lt. Sullivan had told him that he did not need to ask and that he would get his showers. Mr. Coleman was afraid to ask again due to fear of reprisal. For relief, Mr. Coleman requested that he be transferred to the HCU. The grievance officer responded that every effort is made to ensure that offenders with special permits get their needs met but that “offender should remind staff early of scheduled movement.” The response did not address the fact that Mr. Coleman feared reprisal from the officers for doing what the counselor suggested to remedy the situation. On December 18, 2014, the ARB found that the grievance was properly addressed by the counselor and that cell assignment in the HCU is at the discretion of medical staff.
68. On December 12, 2013, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that there was no heat in his segregation cell, causing it to be freezing cold. The cold was such that ice accumulated on the cell windows. The toilet seat froze, it was too cold to wash. Mr. Coleman stated that this had been an issue since October. When Mr. Coleman and his cellmate complained, they were told that the heat was on a timer. On January 10, 2014, nearly a month later, the grievance counselor responded that a work order was submitted on the issue.
69. On May 15, 2014, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that his personal property had been stolen while he was in segregation, including money from his commissary fund. Mr. Coleman attached grievances from July 2013, while he was in segregation, requesting to be assured that his personal property was not taken because the proper procedures had not been filed in logging his property. The grievance counselor responded that inmates receive copies of receipts of their commissary fund purchases and that the other property issues raised were untimely. On September 30, 2014, the ARB filed a response denying the appeals of the grievances because they were not submitted within the proper timeframe. This decision seems to
24

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 25 of 46 PageID #:25
have been directed at the July 2013 grievances that Mr. Coleman submitted as exhibits to his May grievance, and does not address the stolen or misplaced property.
70. On June 8, 2014, Mr. Coleman filed a grievance alleging that he had underwent the colectomy in 2009 because prison doctor Dr. Singer had told him that it would be reversed after three to six months. It had been over five years, and the doctors had refused to reverse the procedure and remove the colostomy bag. Mr. Coleman requested that the prison doctors reverse the procedure to the mental and physical pain he was suffering because of it. Mr. Coleman attached the August 21 grievance detailing the fall he had experienced in the shower that came about as a result of the officers’ treatment of him due to the colostomy bag. The grievance counselor did not appear to respond to this grievance. On September 23, 2014, the ARB denied the grievance as untimely. The denial seemed to stem from the fact that Mr. Coleman had attached the earlier grievance, which had been meant merely as an exhibit to further explain his complaint. The ARB decision did not address Mr. Coleman’s medical issues.
71. Mr. Coleman has stated that his time in segregation has made his anger problems worse. Actions by the officers such as refusing to bring his wheelchair so that he can get to the shower have scarred and frightened Mr. Coleman psychologically. Mr. Coleman felt that he was doing better emotionally and psychologically before he suffered through segregation, but that things have since been much worse. Mr. Coleman now meets with a psychologist to deal with anger issues which have been exacerbated by his time in segregation.
Aaron Fillmore 72. Mr. Fillmore is currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center and is currently in segregation. During the past 15 years, Mr. Fillmore has continuously been either in segregation, Administrative Detention, or Investigate Status, all of which are ultimately extreme
25

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 26 of 46 PageID #:26
isolation. In segregation, Mr. Fillmore has had little to no physical contact with other people and has suffered mentally as a result.
73. Mr. Fillmore was originally placed in extreme isolation 15 years ago when he was transferred from Stateville Correctional Center to Tamms Correctional Center after an incident in which he and another prisoner were alleged to have non-fatally injured a guard. Although Mr. Fillmore pled guilty and received an additional sentence as a result, he also received indeterminate segregation at that time.
74. Despite an almost spotless disciplinary record since that alleged incident 15 years ago for which Mr. Fillmore has already been punished, he has continuously remained in extreme isolation with no hope of being placed back in the general population. Mr. Fillmore was eventually transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center.
75. Mr. Fillmore reported that at Lawrence Correctional Center, inmates on Administrative Detention status are double-celled, often with mentally ill inmates. Inmates in extreme constantly yell, kick doors, and make noise 24 hours a day, 7 days a week due to the lack of mental and physical activity. Also inmates who have spent 90 days or more in extreme isolation are denied their weekly five hours of exercise and instead are only allowed a singleperson cage in the yard twice each week for one or two hours. If he needs a pass to go somewhere, for example, the health care unit, he has to forfeit his entire time in the yard outside.
76. There are no religious programs in extreme isolation and the chaplain does not visit inmates in extreme isolation. Mr. Fillmore has been denied books, catalogs, newspapers, and other materials from the library in addition to his other personal property, including legal materials and gloves in winter, even while on Administrative Detention status. Blankets are only
26

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 27 of 46 PageID #:27
washed every three months and he is only allowed one brief shower each week. Mr. Fillmore reported an incident of another inmate in extreme isolation committing suicide.
77. Mr. Fillmore has suffered mentally as a result of long-term extreme isolation. He recently reported in a grievance that the double-celling of inmates in Administrative Detention status threatens his mental health because he has spent so much time in extreme isolation. Mr. Fillmore reported that double-celling would cause irreparable harm to his mental state. Mr. Fillmore reported that “due to long-term isolation, I suffer from serious mental health issues which are not being treated due to prison officials’ deliberate indifference to my mental state.”
78. Mr. Fillmore has filed at least 25 grievances since he was placed in segregation. Many of those grievances seek relief from his continuous placement in extreme isolation, as well as the conditions of segregation and lack of due process. At least five of the grievances have been denied by the ARB, demonstrating that Mr. Fillmore exhausted his remedies by appealing the denials as far as he could. At least 10 of Mr. Fillmore’s grievances that were properly and timely never received a response from the ARB. Mr. Fillmore wrote a letter to the ARB on January 11, 2015, about the grievances that have not been answered. The ARB’s lack of response to those grievances has denied Mr. Fillmore the ability to exhaust those grievances to which the ARB simply did not respond. Mr. Fillmore did all he could to appeal those grievances as far as he could despite the lack of response from the ARB.
79. On July 27, 2007, Mr. Fillmore filed a grievance stating that the disciplinary report accusing him of having contraband was fabricated, that at the hearing his evidence was denied admittance, that the grievance officer did not review any evidence, and that his witnesses were not called—thus he was denied due process. On November 11, 2007, he received a
27

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 28 of 46 PageID #:28
response from the ARB that his grievance would be addressed without a hearing. The ARB confirmed the offenses and denied the grievance.
80. On June 12, 2013, Mr. Fillmore filed a grievance requesting that a disciplinary report, which resulted in more time in extreme isolation, be expunged, reheard by the committee, and exonerating evidence be reviewed. On June 10, 2014, Mr. Fillmore received a response from the ARB denying his grievance finding no violation of due process and was reasonably satisfied that Mr. Fillmore committed the offense in the report.
81. On July 7, 2013, Mr. Fillmore filed a grievance about his transfer from Tamms Correctional Center to Pontiac Correctional Center on Administrative Detention status and without any review of his Administrative Detention and with no opportunity to defend against his continuous stay in Administrative Detention. On June 25, 2014, Mr. Fillmore received a response from the ARB denying his grievance and stating that the issue was addressed by the facility.
82. On November 12, 2013, Mr. Fillmore filed a grievance because he was transferred from Pontiac Correctional Center to Lawrence Correctional Center in Administrative Detention status with no information as to why he was being transferred nor a hearing. Mr. Fillmore’s Administrative Detention status was also not being reviewed. His grievance requested that IDOC provide him with an Administrative Detention hearing and review of his Administrative Detention status, that he be provided a reason for transfer, a rule book, and that he be transferred out of Lawrence Correctional Center and released from Administrative Detention status, or at the very least given all Administrative Detention rights and privileges. On June 5, 2014, Mr. Fillmore’s counselor responded that the IDOC can assign offenders to any institution it wants and all privileges and amenities with its decision are an administrative
28

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 29 of 46 PageID #:29
decision. Further, the counselor reported that Administrative Detention status was reviewed, but Mr. Fillmore does not have a right to be present during that review. Mr. Fillmore received a response to this grievance from the ARB on December 8, 2014, denying his grievance and stating that his grievance was appropriately addressed by the facility.
83. In 2014, Mr. Fillmore was sentenced to yet another 365 days in extreme isolation, despite an almost spotless disciplinary record in recent years. The reason was for alleged gang activity based on a series of telephone calls he allegedly made and from letters he allegedly wrote. The IDOC claimed these messages and calls contained coded gang instructions. Despite Mr. Fillmore’s requests for the IDOC to review his phone records to show that he did not make the calls on the dates alleged, the IDOC has refused to produce that information. The IDOC has likewise refused to produce the letters allegedly containing coded gang messages. Mr. Fillmore pled not guilty to the charge of gang activity and without being afforded an opportunity to review any phone records or alleged letters, the IDOC sentenced him to 365 more days in extreme isolation. Mr. Fillmore remains in extreme isolation, with no idea or hope as to what he can do to be released or as to when he will be released back into the general population. As a result of this extreme isolation, Mr. Fillmore continues to suffer great mental anguish.
Jerome Jones 84. Mr. Jones is currently in Administrative Phase III detention segregation at Lawrence Correctional Center, after being transferred from Stateville Correctional Center in August 2013. Mr. Jones was removed from general population at Stateville on July 25, 2013, for reasons unknown to him at the time. Mr. Jones has had no disciplinary tickets since 2001.
29

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 30 of 46 PageID #:30
85. Mr. Jones is Muslim and is a member of the Moorish Science Temple of Americas. He is not a member of any gangs or organizations which promote violence. He is active in promoting a peaceful, non-violent culture at the prison.
86. On August 1, 2013, Mr. Jones filed a grievance after being removed from general population at Stateville. In his grievance, Mr. Jones noted that he was not informed to why he was placed in segregation and removed from general population in July 2013 to Administrative Detention. Around seven to eight months later, Mr. Jones was informed during a face-to-face review that he was put in segregation due to his active involvement in a gang. Mr. Jones denied any association with a gang during his time at Stateville or during his time in Lawrence, but has never been given a meaningful opportunity to review the evidence against him, or present any evidence in his defense.
87. In segregation, Mr. Jones lost audio-visual privileges. Mr. Jones further experienced decreased access to property, phones, recreation time, showers, and law library time. The August 1, 2013 grievance was addressed without a formal hearing by the Administrative Review Board on March 3, 2014. Without addressing why he was placed in segregation or his decreased access to inmate privileges in segregation, the Administrative Review Board ruled that he was permitted personal property “as approved by the CAO while in administrative detention.”
88. On February 13, 2014, Marc Hodge, Warden of the Lawrence Correctional Center, wrote a memorandum to Mr. Jones that he was being moved to Administrative Phase III detention based on a review of February 5, 2014.
89. Over a year later, Mr. Jones is still in Administrative Detention, which only permits television or radio with CAO approval. Further, Mr. Jones is isolated and may only eat meals in his cell. He is only permitted showers twice a week and recreation six hours a week,
30

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 31 of 46 PageID #:31
decreased time from general population inmates. While inmates in general population may have six visits a month, Mr. Jones is only permitted four no-contact, pre-approved two-hour visits “as security measures allow.” Mr. Jones has now been in Phase III for over a year with no disciplinary problems. He has no idea what he can do to obtain release from Administrative Detention. Mr. Jones suffers in his loss of inmate privileges and from his continued, neverending isolation. He remains in administrative detention, segregated from not only the general population, but from all meaningful social contact. Risk of Ongoing Harm to Named Plaintiffs and the Class
90. The Plaintiffs and class members are incarcerated in Illinois prison facilities governed by uniform disciplinary policies and customs. Incarcerated 24 hours a day, Plaintiffs and class members are in nonstop contact with corrections officers charged with broad discretion to enforce a list of approximately 50 vague internal prison disciplinary regulations, the majority of which can be classified as relatively minor offenses. Plaintiffs and class members may be charged with an infraction, convicted, and sentenced to segregation for any reason, or for no legitimate reason at all.
91. As a matter of policy and custom, extraordinarily long and severely disproportionate extreme isolation sentences are often imposed on mere misunderstandings between prisoners and corrections officers or for good-faith mistakes in complying with one of IDOC’s numerous regulations. Moreover, prisoners can be, and are, sentenced to segregation for mere hesitation in immediately complying with a correctional officer’s order—a risk particularly significant for prisoners with mental health diagnoses, which make it more difficult to comply with correctional officers’ demands instantaneously. Since IDOC’s policies and customs permit the contested testimony of a single corrections officer to be sufficient evidence of a disciplinary conviction, prisoners are often at risk of long-term segregated confinement for doing nothing
31

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 32 of 46 PageID #:32
culpable at all. Once a prisoner is accused by a correctional officer of committing a disciplinary infraction, it is a near certainty that the prisoner will be convicted, and it is more likely than not that extreme isolation will be imposed as punishment.
92. Moreover, IDOC’s policies and customs advocate the imposition of extreme isolation sanctions when the prisoner’s disciplinary hearing includes prior misbehavior reports and isolation sentences. Thus, prisoners who have previously spent time in extreme isolation— which constitutes an astounding percentage—are at particular risk of being subjected to further segregation sentences, which are often entirely disproportionate to the underlying misbehavior.
93. Finally, every person in an IDOC prison is at risk of being placed in long-term solitary without being charged with any misconduct at all under either Investigative Segregation status or Administrative Detention status, neither of which require a formal charge or a meaningful hearing.
94. In addition, segregated confinement causes many prisoners to experience serious psychological and neurological harms which result in, among other things, loss of impulse control, depersonalization, and rage. These adverse effects may cause the prisoner to engage in atypical acts that IDOC staff will respond to with additional extreme isolation sanctions. In addition, segregated confinement causes severe depression and lethargy in many prisoners— effects which may subject prisoners to additional extreme isolation sanctions for failing to promptly obey orders.
95. The substantial and real risk of future segregation sentences for all incarcerated individuals as a result of IDOC’s policies and customs is exemplified by the unending and continuous segregation of Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Jones with no apparent end or meaningful review of their segregation status. Further, Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Jones may face additional time
32

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 33 of 46 PageID #:33
in segregation that they may be forced to withstand at an officer’s discretion for any future misbehavior, no matter how minor.
96. The IDOC policies and customs outlined in this complaint are uniformly applicable to Plaintiffs and the class, cause ongoing and systemic violations of clearly established rights afforded under the United States Constitution, and put all current and future prisoners at risk of future unjustified segregated confinement and constitutional rights violations.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 97. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs will seek to certify a class of all current and future prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Corrections to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief. All class members face a substantial risk of receiving arbitrary, disproportionate, harmful, and unjustified extreme isolation sentences as a result of IDOC’s policies and customs in violation of the United States Constitution. 98. All four of Rule 23(a)’s requirements are satisfied:
a. Numerosity: Joinder of all class members is impracticable because of the size of the class. There are approximately 9,700 individuals held in IDOC maximum security facilities—with approximately 1,300 confined in segregation at any given time—and all face a substantial risk of being subject to an unconstitutional segregation sentence as a result of Defendant’s system-wide policies and customs. There are almost 40,000 other prisoners housed in minimum and medium security prisons, any one of which could be charged with a disciplinary infraction at any time, or could be placed in Investigative Segregation or Administrative Detention at any time with no charge at all.
33

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 34 of 46 PageID #:34
b. Commonality: There are questions of law and fact common to all class members, including, but not limited to, whether Defendant’s policies and procedures have resulted in and continue to result in the imposition of extreme isolation sentences in violation of the class members’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
c. Typicality: The claims of the class representatives are typical of those of the class members. All Plaintiffs—class representatives and class members—are individuals who have been or are currently transferred from general prison population into segregation. All face substantial risk of receiving extreme isolation sentences in violation of their constitutional rights as a result of the challenged policies and procedures.
d. Adequacy of Representation: The class representatives and class counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The named Plaintiffs are committed to obtaining declaratory and injunctive relief, which will benefit themselves and the class by abating the risk of constitutional harm caused by Defendant’s current policies and customs, and their interests in this matter are not antagonistic to those of other class members. Class counsel has many years of experience with class action and civil rights litigation.
99. A class seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief is properly certified under Federal Rule of Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
34

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 35 of 46 PageID #:35
Injunctive Relief for the Named Plaintiffs and the Class Members Against Defendant Acting Director Gladyse C. Taylor for Violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
100. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. As a result of the foregoing policies and customs authorized and maintained by Defendant Taylor, the named Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and continue to suffer extreme isolation sentences imposed in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ protection against cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, the extremely cramped, ancient, airless, filthy cells in which prisoners in extreme isolation are housed deprive plaintiffs and the plaintiff class of basic human needs, and inflict needless mental and physical injuries. Defendant has violated prisoners’ basic human dignity and their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Deprivation of Basic Human Needs 101. Specifically, Defendant has deprived Plaintiffs and the class of the minimal
civilized measure of life’s necessities. The cumulative effects of extremely prolonged confinement in tiny cages, without meaningful access to human contact and physical activity, constitute serious deprivation of basic human needs. Extreme prolonged deprivation of these basic needs is currently imposing and will continue to impose serious psychological pain and suffering and permanent psychological and physical injury on Plaintiffs and on the class they represent. Defendant has been deliberately indifferent to this pain and suffering caused by extreme isolation that they inflict on Plaintiffs and the class. Plaintiffs and members of the putative class therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief remedying these ongoing and systemic constitutional violations.
Disproportionate Punishment 35

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 36 of 46 PageID #:36
102. Moreover, as a result of the foregoing policies and customs authorized and maintained by the Defendant, the named Plaintiffs and class members have suffered punishment disproportionate to any infraction that they may have committed. No legitimate security or other penological interest justifies punishment of extreme isolation for lengthy or indefinite periods of time that have no reasonable relationship to the infraction committed. Such disproportionate sentencing violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs and members of the putative class therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief remedying these ongoing and systemic constitutional violations.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Named Plaintiffs and the Class Members Against Defendant Acting Director Gladyse C. Taylor for Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
103. As a result of the foregoing policies and customs authorized and maintained by Defendant Taylor, the named Plaintiffs and class members have suffered extreme punishment without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The named Plaintiffs and members of the putative class therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief remedying these ongoing and systemic constitutional violations.
104. Because segregation constitutes a significant and atypical hardship, Plaintiffs and the class members are entitle to meaningful process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant has deprived Plaintiffs and class members of a liberty interest without due process of law by denying them meaningful notice of the potential segregation sentencing ranges and what types of offenses may result in more or less severe classifications and punishments. Plaintiffs are also being denied adequate and meaningful hearings to adjudicate and determine their guilt as well as subsequent reviews of their long-term and often indefinite segregation sentences.
36

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 37 of 46 PageID #:37
REQUESTS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: a. Declare that Defendant’s acts and omissions violated Plaintiffs’ and the class
members’ rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that these acts and omissions continue to cause ongoing violations of these rights; b. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, requiring Defendant Acting Director Gladyse C. Taylor, as well as her officers, agents, servants, employees, and any other person who acted in concert or who participated in the imposition and enforcement of segregation sentences at IDOC facilities, to end the ongoing constitutional violations described above by implementing and conforming with the below standards, the language of which is modeled after the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice (Third Edition), Treatment of Prisoners (2010);
Standard 23-2.6 Rationales for Segregated Housing: a) Correctional authorities shall not place prisoners in segregated housing except for reasons relating to: discipline, security, ongoing investigation of misconduct or crime, protection from harm, medical care, or mental health care. Segregated housing shall be for the briefest term and under the least restrictive conditions practicable and consistent with the rationale for placement and with the progress achieved by the prisoner. Segregation for health care needs shall be in a location separate from disciplinary and longterm segregated housing. Policies relating to segregation for whatever reason
37

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 38 of 46 PageID #:38
shall take account of the special developmental needs of prisoners under the age of eighteen. b) If necessary for an investigation or the reasonable needs of law enforcement or prosecuting authorities, correctional authorities shall be permitted to confine a prisoner under investigation for possible criminal violations in segregated housing for a period no more than 30 days.
Standard 23-2.7 Rationales for Long-term Segregated Housing: a) Correctional authorities shall use long-term segregated housing sparingly and shall not place or retain prisoners in such housing except for reasons relating to: i. discipline after a finding that the prisoner has committed a very severe disciplinary infraction, in which safety or security was seriously threatened; ii. a credible continuing and serious threat to the security of others or to the prisoner’s own safety; or iii. prevention of airborne contagion. b) Correctional authorities shall not place a prisoner in long-term segregated housing based on the security risk the prisoner poses to others unless less restrictive alternatives are unsuitable in light of a continuing and serious threat to the security of the facility, staff, other prisoners, or the public as a result of the prisoner’s: i. history of serious violent behavior in correctional facilities;
38

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 39 of 46 PageID #:39
ii. acts such as escapes or attempted escapes from secure correctional settings;
iii. acts or threats of violence likely to destabilize the institutional environment to such a degree that the order and security of the facility is threatened;
iv. membership in a security threat group accompanied by a finding based on specific and reliable information that the prisoner either has engaged in dangerous or threatening behavior directed by the group or directs the dangerous or threatening behavior of others; or
v. incitement or threats to incite group disturbances in a correctional facility.
Standard 23-2.8 Segregated Housing and Mental Health: a) No prisoner diagnosed with serious mental illness shall be placed in long-term segregated housing. b) No prisoner shall be placed in segregated housing for more than 1 day without a mental health screening, conducted in person by a qualified mental health professional, and a prompt comprehensive mental health assessment if clinically indicated. If the assessment indicates the presence of a serious mental illness, or a history of serious mental illness and decompensation in segregated settings, the prisoner shall be placed in an environment where appropriate treatment can occur. Any prisoner in segregated housing who develops serious mental illness shall be placed in an environment where appropriate treatment can occur.
39

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 40 of 46 PageID #:40
c) The mental health of prisoners in long-term segregated housing shall be monitored as follows: i. Daily, correctional staff shall maintain a log documenting prisoners’ behavior. ii. Several times each week, a qualified mental health professional shall observe each segregated housing unit, speaking to unit staff, reviewing the prisoner log, and observing and talking with prisoners who are receiving mental health treatment. iii. Weekly, a qualified mental health professional shall observe and seek to talk with each prisoner. iv. Monthly, and more frequently if clinically indicated, a qualified mental health professional shall see and treat each prisoner who is receiving mental health treatment. Absent an individualized finding that security would be compromised, such treatment shall take place out of cell, in a setting in which security staff cannot overhear the conversation. v. At least every 90 days, a qualified mental health professional shall perform a comprehensive mental health assessment of each prisoner in segregated housing unless a qualified mental health professional deems such assessment unnecessary in light of observations made pursuant to subdivisions (ii)-(iv).
Standard 23-2.9 Procedures for Placement and Retention in Long-term Segregated Housing:
40

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 41 of 46 PageID #:41
a) A prisoner shall be placed or retained in long-term segregated housing only after an individualized determination, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the substantive prerequisites set out in Standards 23-2.7 and 23-5.5 for such placement are met. In addition, if long-term segregation is being considered either because the prisoner poses a credible continuing and serious threat to the security of others or to the prisoner’s own safety, the prisoner shall be afforded, at a minimum, the following procedural protections: i. timely, written, and effective notice that such a placement is being considered, the facts upon which consideration is based, and the prisoner’s rights under this Standard; ii. decision-making by a specialized classification committee that includes a qualified mental health care professional; iii. a hearing at which the prisoner may be heard in person and, absent an individualized determination of good cause, has a reasonable opportunity to present available witnesses and information; iv. absent an individualized determination of good cause, opportunity for the prisoner to confront and cross-examine any witnesses or, if good cause to limit such confrontation is found, to propound questions to be relayed to the witnesses; v. an interpreter, if necessary for the prisoner to understand or participate in the proceedings; vi. if the classification committee determines that a prisoner is unable to prepare and present evidence and arguments effectively on his or her
41

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 42 of 46 PageID #:42
own behalf, counsel or some other appropriate advocate for the prisoner; vii. an independent determination by the classification committee of the reliability and credibility of confidential informants if material allowing such determination is available to the correctional agency; viii. a written statement setting forth the evidence relied on and the reasons for placement; and ix. prompt review of the classification committee’s decision by correctional administrators. b) Within 30 days of a prisoner’s placement in long-term segregated housing based on a finding that the prisoner presents a continuing and serious threat to the security of others, correctional authorities shall develop an individualized plan for the prisoner. The plan shall include an assessment of the prisoner’s needs, a strategy for correctional authorities to assist the prisoner in meeting those needs, and a statement of the expectations for the prisoner to progress toward fewer restrictions and lower levels of custody based on the prisoner’s behavior. Correctional authorities shall provide the plan or a summary of it to the prisoner, and explain it, so that the prisoner can understand such expectations. c) At intervals not to exceed 30 days, correctional authorities shall conduct and document an evaluation of each prisoner’s progress under the individualized plan required by subdivision (b) of this Standard. The evaluation shall also consider the state of the prisoner’s mental health; address the extent to which
42

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 43 of 46 PageID #:43
the individual’s behavior, measured against the plan, justifies the need to maintain, increase, or decrease the level of controls and restrictions in place at the time of the evaluation; and recommend a full classification review as described in subdivision (d) of this Standard when appropriate. d) At intervals not to exceed 90 days, a full classification review involving a meeting of the prisoner and the specialized classification committee shall occur to determine whether the prisoner’s progress toward compliance with the individual plan required by subdivision (b) of this Standard or other circumstances warrant a reduction of restrictions, increased programming, or a return to a lower level of custody. If a prisoner has met the terms of the individual plan, there shall be a presumption in favor of releasing the prisoner from segregated housing. A decision to retain a prisoner in segregated housing following consideration by the classification review committee shall be reviewed by a correctional administrator, and approved, rejected, or modified as appropriate. e) Consistent with such confidentiality as is required to prevent a significant risk of harm to other persons, a prisoner being evaluated for placement in longterm segregated housing for any reason shall be permitted reasonable access to materials considered at both the initial and the periodic reviews, and shall be allowed to meet with and submit written statements to persons reviewing the prisoner’s classification. f) Correctional officials shall implement a system to facilitate the return to lower levels of custody of prisoners housed in long-term segregated housing. Except
43

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 44 of 46 PageID #:44
in compelling circumstances, a prisoner serving a sentence who would otherwise be released directly to the community from long-term segregated housing shall be placed in a less restrictive setting for the final months of confinement.
Standard 23-3.8 Segregated Housing: a) Correctional authorities shall be permitted to physically separate prisoners in segregated housing from other prisoners but shall not deprive them of those items or services necessary for the maintenance of psychological and physical wellbeing. b) Conditions of extreme isolation shall not be allowed regardless of the reasons for a prisoner’s separation from the general population. Conditions of extreme isolation generally include a combination of sensory deprivation, lack of contact with other persons, enforced idleness, minimal out-of-cell time, and lack of outdoor recreation. c) All prisoners placed in segregated housing shall be provided with meaningful forms of mental, physical, and social stimulation. Depending upon individual assessments of risks, needs, and the reasons for placement in the segregated setting, those forms of stimulation shall include: i. in-cell programming, which shall be developed for prisoners who are not permitted to leave their cells; ii. additional out-of-cell time, taking into account the size of the prisoner’s cell and the length of time the prisoner has been housed in this setting;
44

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 45 of 46 PageID #:45
iii. opportunities to exercise in the presence of other prisoners, although, if necessary, separated by security barriers;
iv. daily face-to-face interaction with both uniformed and civilian staff; and
v. access to radio or television for programming or mental stimulation, although such access shall not substitute for human contact described in subdivisions (i) to (iv).
d) Prisoners placed in segregated housing for reasons other than discipline shall be allowed as much out-of-cell time and programming participation as practicable, consistent with security.
e) No cell used to house prisoners in segregated housing shall be smaller than 80 square feet, and cells shall be designed to permit prisoners assigned to them to converse with and be observed by staff. Physical features that facilitate suicide attempts shall be eliminated in all segregation cells. Except if required for security or safety reasons for a particular prisoner, segregation cells shall be equipped in compliance with Standard 23-3.3(b).
f) Correctional staff shall monitor and assess any health or safety concerns related to the refusal of a prisoner in segregated housing to eat or drink, or to participate in programming, recreation, or out-of-cell activity.
c. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and d. Grant any other relief the Court deems necessary and proper.
45

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 46 of 46 PageID #:46
DATED: June 24, 2015
By: /s/ Kimball R. Anderson Plaintiffs By their attorneys, Kimball R. Anderson Alyssa E. Ramirez Joanna F. Cornwell Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 312-558-5600 (tel) 312-558-5700 (fax) kanderson@winston.com aramirez@winston.com jcornwell@winston.com Alan S. Mills Uptown People’s Law Center 4413 North Sheridan Road Chicago, IL 60640 773-769-1411 (tel) 773-769-2224 (fax) alanmills@comcast.net
46

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:47

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit

Description

Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution A. Population Chart, dated June 30, 2013

Segregation Sentence Imposed Compared to the Actual Length of Stay in B. Segregation, dated June 30, 2013

Quantitative Findings on Use and Outcomes of Segregation in IL DOC, dated C. September 28, 2011
D. Various Segregation Charts, dated from September 30, 2009 to December 31, 2012
Memorandum of Understanding Between The Illinois Department of Corrections E. and The Vera Institute of Justice, dated May 2010
Reducing Prisoner Isolation: An Innovative Approach to Classification and F. Management of Segregation, Control Units, and Supermax, undated

G. IDOC Segregation Study Major Findings, undated

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:48
Exhibit A

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:49
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
June 30, 2013

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 06/30/13

(OERHP101) as of 06/30/13 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Parent Facility Closed Maximum Security Tamms CC
Maximum Security Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Maximum Security Total
Medium Security Big Muddy River CC Centralia CC Danville CC Dixon CC Graham CC Hill CC Illinois River CC Lawrence CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Pinckneyville CC Shawnee CC Sheridan CC Western Illinois CC Medium Security Total Minimum Security Decatur CC East Moline CC Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Southwestern Illinois CC Taylorville CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Minimum Security Total

Beds
0
0 390 914 226 1,530
60 54 59 179 60 111 59 142 11 99 231 112 48 108 1,333
16 48 19 15 8 14 66 32 218

Inmates
0
0 352 822 203 1,377
49 52 50 129 43 85 48 107 5 83 197 100 25 82 1,055
4 39 11
1 5 3 30 28 121

Inmates
0
0 324 779 183 1,286
38 37 32 116 22 47 21 96 0 34 147 65 13 53 721
0 23 3
1 3 2 13 22 67

Inmates
0
0 22 111 3 136
0 0 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inmates
0
0 346 890 186 1,422
38 37 32 122 22 48 21 97 0 34 147 65 13 54 730
0 23 3
1 3 2 13 22 67

Total

3,081

2,553

2,074

145

2,219

Inmates with a Segregation
Assignment as of June 30, 2012

Difference from 06/30/12
to 06/30/13

Institution Population as of 06/30/13 Inmates

168

-168

0

44

-44

302

44

658

232

90

96

1,094

328

0 3,735 1,977 3,979 9,691

32

6

35

2

24

8

112

10

21

1

57

-9

17

4

85

12

1

-1

14

20

148

-1

62

3

1

12

42

12

651

79

1,911 1,563 1,904 2,413 1,954 1,824 2,131 2,386 1,004 1,951 2,513 2,115 2,066 2,123 27,858

0

0

11

12

4

-1

3

-2

4

-1

1

1

16

-3

10

12

49

18

1,962

257

697 1,429 1,525 1,205
696 1,201 1,657 1,891 10,301
47,850

June 2012 Stats Difference

3,888 -807

2,651 -98

1,846 228

116 29
Prepared by Planning and Research

1,962 257

47,070 780

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:50
Exhibit B

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:51
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Sentence Imposed Compared to the Actual Length of Stay in Segregation
Segregation Assignment as of June 30, 2013

Length of Stay in Segregation
3 months or less 3 to 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 5 years 5 to 6 years 6 to 7 years 7 to 8 years 8 to 9 years 9 to 10 years More than 10 years
Total

1 Year or Less
1,175 253 109 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,539

Segregation Sentence Imposed

1 to 2 Years 2 to 3 Years 3 to 4 Years 4 to 5 Years 5 to 6 Years 6 to 7 Years

46

12

3

1

1

1

63

14

5

3

0

2

87

26

4

3

2

5

28

33

11

4

5

3

0

7

12

7

6

3

0

0

1

7

5

5

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

224

92

36

25

22

23

7 to 8 Years
0 1 4 5 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 18

More than 10 8 to 9 Years 9 to 10 Years Years*

0

2

33

0

0

23

1

1

105

1

3

10

3

1

6

1

2

7

0

3

10

1

0

7

1

2

3

0

0

3

0

0

2

0

0

4

0

0

5

8

14

218

1 To 2 Years 2 To 3 Years 3 To 4 Years 4 To 5 Years 5 To 6 Years 6 To 7 Years 7 To 8 Years 8 To 9 Years 9 To 10 Years More Than 10 Years*
Total

Dixon 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
10

Segregation Sentences Imposed Greater than 1 Year by Facility

Hill

Logan

Menard Pinckneyville Pontiac Stateville

2

4

45

2

163

6

0

2

10

0

76

3

0

1

2

0

32

0

0

1

0

0

22

2

0

0

1

0

21

0

0

0

2

0

20

1

0

0

1

0

17

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

14

0

1

2

6

0

193

9

3

10

67

2

566

21

Western Illinois 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 224 92 36 25 22 23 18 8 14 218 680

Total
1,274 364 347 105 46 33 16 12 8 3 2 4 5
2,219

Length of Stay for Inmates Serving More Than 1 Year in Segregation by

Facility

Dixon

Menard

Pontiac

Total

1 To 2 Years

2

4

99

105

2 To 3 Years

0

1

45

46

3 To 4 Years

1

0

32

33

4 To 5 Years

0

1

15

16

5 To 6 Years

0

0

12

12

6 To 7 Years

0

0

8

8

7 To 8 Years

0

0

3

3

8 To 9 Years

0

0

2

2

9 To 10 Years

0

0

4

4

More Than 10 Years

0

0

5

5

Total

3

6

225

234

*Includes cases without a planned-end-date entered into OTS.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:52
Exhibit C

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:53
Dr. Suzanne Agha, Vera Institute of Justice Dr. James Austin, JFA Institute
Dr. Angela Browne, Vera Institute of Justice

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:54
All prisoners released from segregation in 2008
Followed for 12 months after release to general population from segregation; Must remain imprisoned for a full 12 months after leaving segregation to be included in these numbers.
2

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:55
Prisoners who spent less time in segregation were not more likely to commit new violations during the first 12 months of release into general population.
3

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:56
In addition, prisoners who committed more serious incoming violations were not more likely to commit new violations during the first 12 months of release into general population.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:57
* Mode = 31 days, Median = 31 days
5

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:58

15% of population had 100 or 200 class violations

85% of population had 300 – 600 class violations

*If more than one violation in the same incident table examines most serious violation.

**Number in white rows are the largest types of violations within each class and will not

sum to the total number of violations in the class.

6

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:59
7

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:60
8

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:61
9

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:62
100 – 200 class = 31%

300 – 400 class = 68%

Almost ½ commit 300 class

violations

10

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:63
For prisoners released from segregation in 2008, IDOC data indicate that:
Those who spent less time in segregation were not more likely to commit new violations during the first 12 months of release into general population. Those who committed more serious incoming violations were not more likely to commit new violations during the next 12 months.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:64
Exhibit D

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:65
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Table 1: Segregation Sentences Imposed
September 30, 2009

Parent Facility Level 1 - Maximum Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Tamms CC Thomson CC Level 1 - Total Level 2 -Secure Medium Hill CC Lawrence CC Pinckneyville CC Western Illinois CC Level 2 - Total Level 3 - High Medium Big Muddy River CC Danville CC Dixon CC Illinois River CC Shawnee CC Level 3 - Total Level 4 - Medium Centralia CC Decatur CC Graham CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Sheridan CC Level 4 - Total Level 5 - High Minimum Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Taylorville CC Level 5 - Total Level 6 - Minimum East Moline CC Southwestern Illinois CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Level 6 - Total Total

Housing Availability Report (OERHP101) as of 10/02/09

Beds

Inmates

Total Inmates with Seg Asgnt

Average Segregation

Sentence Imposed

Days

Years

Segregation (OTS Primary Assignment Code 4000)
Segregation Sentences Imposed Year Ranges 0 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 3 3.1 - 4 4.1 - 5 5.1- 6 6.1 - 7 7.1 - 8 8.1 - 9 9.1 - 10

10 + Total

110 505 785 261 472
0 2,133

81 468 625 227 225
0 1,626

69 444 614 209
0 0 1,336

759.3 425.7 1,652.7 518.4
0.0 0.0 559

2.1

56

6

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

69

1.2 379

36

6

7

1

2

1

0

1

2

9 444

4.5 302 100

52

21

19

11

15

8

6

10

70 614

1.4 180

18

6

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

3 209

0.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.5 917 160

66

30

20

13

16

9

7

12

86 1,336

111

106

218

121

408

224

108

105

845

556

85

76.2

103

59.6

204

82.4

56

95.7

448

78

0.2

85

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

85

0.2 103

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 103

0.2 202

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 204

0.3

55

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

56

0.2 445

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 448

59

57

87

61

161

140

59

54

112

101

478

413

38

106.2

46

80.7

112

223.2

30

51.5

85

55.3

311

103.4

0.3

36

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

38

0.2

46

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

46

0.6 104

4

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1 112

0.1

30

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

0.2

85

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

85

0.3 301

6

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1 311

54

49

16

5

59

50

11

10

50

21

65

23

255

158

31

55.7

3

31.0

32

55.0

3

30.0

3

45.0

8

229.4

80

43.3

0.2

31

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

31

0.1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0.2

32

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32

0.1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0.1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0.6

7

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

0.1

79

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

80

19

9

15

12

14

11

48

32

5

27.8

7

43.9

2

9.5

14

27.1

0.1

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0.1

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

0.0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.1

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

32 8
66 26 132 3,891

19 5
18 18 60 2,845

10 0
11 13 34 2,223

46.6 0.0
15.1 53.9 28.9 172.5

0.1

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

0.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

0.1

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

0.1

34

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

34

0.5 1,790 169

67

31

20

14

17

9

7

12

87 2,223

Note: 2,845 inmates occupied segregation beds on 10/02/09; only 2,223 had a primary assignment of segregation as of 09/30/09.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:66

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
August 31, 2010

Parent Facility Level 1 - Maximum Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Tamms CC Level 1 - Total Level 2 -Secure Medium Hill CC Lawrence CC Pinckneyville CC Western Illinois CC Level 2 - Total Level 3 - High Medium Big Muddy River CC Danville CC Dixon CC Illinois River CC Shawnee CC Level 3 - Total Level 4 - Medium Centralia CC Decatur CC Graham CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Sheridan CC Level 4 - Total Level 5 - High Minimum Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Taylorville CC Level 5 - Total Level 6 - Minimum East Moline CC Southwestern Illinois CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Level 6 - Total Total

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 8/31/10

(OERHP101) as of 08/29/10 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Beds

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

127 504 784 262 472 2,149

106 405 655 195 213 1,574

53 333 633 135 81 1,235

0

53

0

333

4

637

0

135

133

214

137

1,372

111

90

60

218

153

151

230

193

178

108

89

53

667

525

442

0

60

0

151

0

178

0

53

0

442

60

51

40

87

77

26

163

137

123

59

56

31

112

110

91

481

431

311

0

40

0

26

1

124

2

33

0

91

3

314

54

53

35

16

6

1

59

24

20

11

9

6

50

47

17

48

22

14

238

161

93

0

35

0

1

0

20

0

6

0

17

0

14

0

93

19

10

5

15

9

8

14

6

0

48

25

13

0

5

0

8

0

0

0

13

32 8 66 26 132 3,715

24 7 41 25 97 2,813

6 9 20 20 55 2,149

0

6

0

9

0

20

0

20

0

55

140

2,289

Institution Population as of 8/31/10 Inmates
1,061 3,552 1,656 3,599
406 10,274
1,822 2,319 2,424 2,072 8,637
1,902 1,836 2,232 2,066 2,033 10,069
1,537 636
1,916 1,015 1,924 1,469 8,497
1,608 1,216 1,200 4,024
1,203 675
1,705 1,660 5,243 46,744

Note: 2,800 inmates occupied segregation beds on 08/29/10; only 2,288 had a primary assignment of segregation as of 08/31/10.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:67

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
December 31, 2010

Parent Facility Level 1 - Maximum Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Tamms CC Level 1 - Total Level 2 -Secure Medium Hill CC Lawrence CC Pinckneyville CC Western Illinois CC Level 2 - Total Level 3 - High Medium Big Muddy River CC Danville CC Dixon CC Illinois River CC Shawnee CC Level 3 - Total Level 4 - Medium Centralia CC Graham CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Sheridan CC Level 4 - Total Level 5 - High Minimum Decatur CC Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Taylorville CC Level 5 - Total Level 6 - Minimum East Moline CC Southwestern Illinois CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Level 6 - Total Total

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 12/31/10

(OERHP101) as of 12/29/10 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Beds

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

123 504 790 309 530 2,256

101 419 637 248 210 1,615

58 339 626 164 82 1,269

0

58

1

340

4

630

0

164

128

210

133

1,402

111

97

57

218

169

158

231

210

172

108

87

49

668

563

436

0

57

0

158

0

172

0

49

0

436

60

50

35

87

59

39

163

125

72

59

48

20

112

108

69

481

390

235

0

35

0

39

1

73

0

20

0

69

1

236

54

44

23

59

54

38

11

10

0

50

35

19

48

33

16

222

176

96

0

23

0

38

0

0

0

19

0

16

0

96

16

0

1

19

6

3

15

6

6

14

5

0

64

17

10

0

1

0

3

0

6

0

0

0

10

32 8 66 26 132 3,823

31 7 24 16 78 2,839

12 2 3 7 24 2,070

0

12

0

2

0

3

0

7

0

24

134

2,204

Institution Population as of 12/31/10 Inmates
1,085 3,529 1,696 3,364
408 10,082
1,835 2,338 2,449 2,093 8,715
1,911 1,823 2,282 2,061 2,036 10,113
1,547 1,884 1,006 1,978 1,649 8,064
665 1,608 1,206 1,207 4,686
1,231 693
1,718 1,879 5,521 47,181

Note: 2,839 inmates occupied segregation beds on 12/29/10; only 2,203 had a primary assignment of segregation as of 12/31/10.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:68
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Counts and Sentences Extending Beyond the Projected Mandatory Supervised Release Date (MSR)
December 31, 2010

Total

Total Inmates with Seg Asgnt
2,204

Projected MSR Date

Excluded Cases

Life or SDP Incorrect Date Valid

130

209 1,865

Average Segregation

Sentences Imposed

Days

Years

1,008.5

2.8

Segregation Sentences Extending Beyond Mandatory Supervised Release Date

Year Ranges

0 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 3 3.1 - 4 4.1 - 5 5.1 - 6 6.1 - 7 7.1 - 8 8.1 - 9 9.1 - 10 10+

138

22

16

9

9

4

3

2

4

4

47

Total 258

Note: 2,203 had a primary assignment of segregation as of 12/31/10 (130 had a life sentence or Sexual Dangerous Person (SDP) commitment and 209 were past their projected MSR dates as of 12/31/10.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:69

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
October 31, 2011

Parent Facility Level 1 - Maximum Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Tamms CC Level 1 - Total Level 2 -Secure Medium Hill CC Lawrence CC Pinckneyville CC Western Illinois CC Level 2 - Total Level 3 - High Medium Big Muddy River CC Danville CC Dixon CC Illinois River CC Shawnee CC Level 3 - Total Level 4 - Medium Centralia CC Graham CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Sheridan CC Level 4 - Total Level 5 - High Minimum Decatur CC Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Taylorville CC Level 5 - Total Level 6 - Minimum East Moline CC Southwestern Illinois CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Level 6 - Total Total

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 10/31/11

*(OERHP101) as of 11/30/11 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Beds

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

0

0

59 345 657 131 73 1,265

0

59

0

345

9

666

0

131

129

202

138

1,403

66

138

151

61

0

0

416

0

66

0

138

0

151

0

61

0

416

43

40

100

29

81

0

0

293

0

43

0

40

1

101

1

30

0

81

2

295

34

16

0

8

11

0

0

69

0

34

0

16

0

0

0

8

0

11

0

69

0

0

0

1

0

1

4

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

5

0

0

0

0

13 2 18 14 47 2,095

0

13

0

2

0

18

0

14

0

47

140

2,235

Institution Population as of 10/31/11 Inmates
1,056 3,610 1,743 3,671
395 10,475
1,836 2,336 2,487 2,076 8,735
1,931 1,822 2,347 2,085 2,040 10,225
1,540 1,938
997 1,975 1,641 8,091
671 1,606 1,213 1,207 4,697
1,235 694
1,748 1,920 5,597 47,820

Note: 2,839 inmates occupied segregation beds on 12/29/10; only 2,203 had a primary assignment of segregation as of 12/31/10. *Report must be requested in advance

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:70

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
November 30, 2011

Parent Facility Level 1 - Maximum Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Tamms CC Level 1 - Total Level 2 -Secure Medium Hill CC Lawrence CC Pinckneyville CC Western Illinois CC Level 2 - Total Level 3 - High Medium Big Muddy River CC Danville CC Dixon CC Illinois River CC Shawnee CC Level 3 - Total Level 4 - Medium Centralia CC Graham CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Sheridan CC Level 4 - Total Level 5 - High Minimum Decatur CC Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Taylorville CC Level 5 - Total Level 6 - Minimum East Moline CC Southwestern Illinois CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Level 6 - Total Total

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 11/30/11

(OERHP101) as of 11/30/11 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Beds

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

127 494 784 313 530 2,248

88 431 662 281 199 1,661

44 326 652
94 77 1,193

0

44

6

332

6

658

29

123

120

197

161

1,354

111

98

54

218

111

111

231

218

189

108

93

71

668

520

425

0

54

0

111

0

189

0

71

0

425

60

45

36

87

56

34

181

120

71

59

51

24

112

106

71

499

378

236

0

36

0

34

2

73

0

24

0

71

2

238

54

54

35

59

28

13

11

10

0

50

38

9

48

24

10

222

154

67

0

35

5

18

0

0

0

9

0

10

5

72

16

0

0

0

0

19

7

5

0

5

15

6

1

0

1

14

8

1

0

1

64

21

7

0

7

32 8 66 32 138 3,839

28 5 34 29 96 2,830

21 1 18 22 62 1,990

0

21

0

1

0

18

0

22

0

62

168

2,158

Institution Population as of 11/30/11 Inmates
1,008 3,619 1,710 3,625
397 10,359
1,840 2,303 2,464 2,041 8,648
1,922 1,827 2,335 2,041 2,018 10,143
1,534 1,896 1,007 1,973 1,606 8,016
692 1,571 1,196 1,197 4,656
1,219 700
1,720 1,899 5,538 47,360

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:71

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
December 31, 2011

Parent Facility Level 1 - Maximum Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Tamms CC Level 1 - Total Level 2 -Secure Medium Hill CC Lawrence CC Pinckneyville CC Western Illinois CC Level 2 - Total Level 3 - High Medium Big Muddy River CC Danville CC Dixon CC Illinois River CC Shawnee CC Level 3 - Total Level 4 - Medium Centralia CC Graham CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Sheridan CC Level 4 - Total Level 5 - High Minimum Decatur CC Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Taylorville CC Level 5 - Total Level 6 - Minimum East Moline CC Southwestern Illinois CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Level 6 - Total Total

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 12/31/11

(OERHP101) as of 12/31/11 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Beds

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

127 494 784 308 530 2,243

87 435 665 242 200 1,629

57 339 653
99 75 1,223

0

57

5

344

6

659

0

99

124

199

135

1,358

111

90

56

218

121

118

231

200

169

108

81

37

668

492

380

0

56

0

118

0

169

0

37

0

380

60

38

28

87

64

30

181

119

72

59

48

22

112

101

81

499

370

233

0

28

0

30

2

74

0

22

0

81

2

235

54

53

43

59

48

37

11

9

0

50

37

4

48

18

6

222

165

90

0

43

0

37

0

0

0

4

0

6

0

90

16

2

0

19

4

0

15

10

8

14

3

3

64

19

11

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

3

0

11

32 8 66 32 138 3,834

24 5 29 26 84 2,759

12 4 5 11 32 1,969

0

12

0

4

0

5

0

11

0

32

137

2,106

Institution Population as of 12/31/11 Inmates
1,019 3,607 1,687 3,601
379 10,293
1,826 2,301 2,453 2,051 8,631
1,902 1,819 2,345 2,061 2,031 10,158
1,547 1,840
992 1,964 1,587 7,930
680 1,567 1,195 1,193 4,635
1,286 695
1,642 1,893 5,516 47,163

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:72
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Sentence Imposed Compared to the Actual Length of Stay in Segregation
Segregation Assignment as of December 31, 2011

Length of Stay in Segregation
3 months or less 3 to 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 5 years 5 to 6 years 6 to 7 years 7 to 8 years 8 to 9 years 9 to 10 years More than 10 years
Total

1 Year 1 to 2 or Less Years

1,084

55

211

65

80

84

0

34

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,375 238

2 to 3 Years
6 11 24 43
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90

3 to 4 Years
1 3 5 18 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46

Segregation Sentence Imposed

4 to 5 Years
1 1 8 6 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27

5 to 6 Years 6 to 7 Years

0

2

2

2

3

4

10

5

6

4

6

3

1

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

29

23

7 to 8 Years
1 0 1 1 5 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 14

8 to 9 Years

9 to 10 Years

More than 10 Years*

0

0

135

1

0

8

2

2

11

2

1

13

3

0

16

3

0

6

0

0

11

0

1

6

0

0

12

0

1

8

0

0

5

0

0

1

0

0

16

11

5

248

Total
1,285 304 224 133 60 29 16 11 13 9 5 1 16
2,106

Danville

1 To 2 Years

1

2 To 3 Years

0

3 To 4 Years

0

4 To 5 Years

0

5 To 6 Years

0

6 To 7 Years

0

7 To 8 Years

0

8 To 9 Years

0

9 To 10 Years

0

More Than 10 Years*

0

Total

1

Segregation Sentences Imposed Greater than 1 Year by Facility

Dixon 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
14

Dwight 7 3 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 3
18

Hill Lawrence

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

MenardPinckneyville

48

3

8

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

5

0

66

3

Pontiac Stateville

146

8

72

2

40

1

23

0

23

1

17

3

12

0

9

1

3

1

74

4

419

21

Tamms 12 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 0
158 184

Western Illinois 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 238 90 46 27 29 23 14 11 5 248 731

Length of Stay for Inmates Serving More Than 1 Year in Segregation by Facility

Dixon Dwight Menard Pontiac Stateville Tamms

1 To 2 Years

3

4

10

102

4

10

2 To 3 Years

1

3

3

48

0

5

3 To 4 Years

0

2

0

23

0

4

4 To 5 Years

1

0

0

13

0

2

5 To 6 Years

0

0

0

7

0

4

6 To 7 Years

0

0

1

4

0

8

7 To 8 Years

1

0

0

6

0

2

8 To 9 Years

0

0

0

3

0

2

9 To 10 Years

0

0

0

1

0

0

More Than 10 Years

0

1

0

3

0

12

Total

6

10

14

210

4

49

Total 133 60 29 16 11 13 9 5 1 16 293

*Includes cases without a planned-end-date entered into OTS.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:73
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
March 31, 2012

Parent Facility Level 1 - Maximum Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Tamms CC Level 1 - Total Level 2 -Secure Medium Hill CC Lawrence CC Pinckneyville CC Western Illinois CC Level 2 - Total Level 3 - High Medium Big Muddy River CC Danville CC Dixon CC Illinois River CC Shawnee CC Level 3 - Total Level 4 - Medium Centralia CC Graham CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Sheridan CC Level 4 - Total Level 5 - High Minimum Decatur CC Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Taylorville CC Level 5 - Total Level 6 - Minimum East Moline CC Southwestern Illinois CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Level 6 - Total
Total

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 03/31/12

(OERHP101) as of 03/31/12 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Beds

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

127 494 954 188 530 2,293

88 437 692 121 183 1,521

50 345 682
80 68 1,225

0

50

0

345

4

686

0

80

114

182

118

1,343

111

81

51

218

106

107

231

211

177

108

84

65

668

482

400

0

51

0

107

0

177

0

65

0

400

60

45

37

87

60

41

179

147

119

59

34

19

112

100

85

497

386

301

0

37

0

41

2

121

0

19

0

85

2

303

54

50

38

60

42

27

11

10

1

50

44

10

48

15

11

223

161

87

0

38

0

27

0

1

1

11

0

11

1

88

16

5

0

19

3

2

15

10

9

14

9

3

64

27

14

0

0

0

2

0

9

0

3

0

14

32 8
66 32 138
3,883

32 5
35 21 93
2,670

16 4
24 4
48
2,075

0

16

0

4

0

24

0

4

0

48

121

2,196

Inmates with a

Segregation

Difference

Assignment as of from 12/31/11

December 31, 2011 to 03/31/12

Institution Population as of 03/31/12 Inmates

57

-7

344

1

659

27

99

-19

199

-17

1,358

-15

952 3,626 1,740 3,526
383 10,227

56

-5

118

-11

169

8

37

28

380

20

1,812 2,281 2,414 2,015 8,522

28

9

30

11

74

47

22

-3

81

4

235

68

1,883 1,811 2,355 2,051 2,020 10,120

43

-5

37

-10

0

1

4

7

6

5

90

-2

1,536 1,797 1,010 1,955 1,644 7,942

0

0

0

2

8

1

3

0

11

3

687 1,556 1,207 1,215 4,665

12

4

4

0

5

19

11

-7

32

16

2,106

90

1,301 701
1,645 1,877 5,524
47,000

December 2011 Stats Difference

3,834 49

2,759 -89

1,969 106

137

2,106

-16

90

47,163 -163

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:74

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Sentence Imposed Compared to the Actual Length of Stay in Segregation
Segregation Assignment as of March 31, 2012

Length of Stay in Segregation
3 months or less 3 to 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 5 years 5 to 6 years 6 to 7 years 7 to 8 years 8 to 9 years 9 to 10 years More than 10 years
Total

1 Year 1 to 2 or Less Years

1,224

52

176

48

83

98

0

34

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,483 232

2 to 3 Years
6 8 27 37 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85

3 to 4 Years
5 2 6 15 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46

Segregation Sentence Imposed

4 to 5 Years

5 to 6 Years

6 to 7 Years

7 to 8 Years

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of December 31, 2011

9 to 10 8 to 9 Years Years

More than 10 Years*

Total

3

1

3

0

1

0

1

1

5

2

3

0

10

11

4

1

6

7

4

6

4

4

4

2

1

0

1

3

0

1

2

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

26

24

14

1

0

116 1,411

0

0

21

258

2

0

11

237

4

0

11

127

2

3

11

62

2

0

12

30

1

0

9

15

0

1

7

12

1

0

7

10

0

1

10

11

0

0

5

5

0

0

1

1

0

0

17

17

13

5

238 2,196

Danville

1 To 2 Years

1

2 To 3 Years

0

3 To 4 Years

0

4 To 5 Years

0

5 To 6 Years

0

6 To 7 Years

0

7 To 8 Years

0

8 To 9 Years

0

9 To 10 Years

0

More Than 10 Years*

0

Total

1

Dixon 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
12

Segregation Sentences Imposed Greater than 1 Year by Facility

Illinois

Dwight

Hill River Lawrence Logan Menard Pinckneyville

7

1

1

2

1

45

2

2

0

0

0

0

8

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

7

0

16

1

1

2

1

66

2

Pontiac Stateville

153

4

69

1

40

0

27

0

23

0

19

0

13

0

11

0

5

0

74

1

434

6

Tamms 10 3 3 1 2 2 0 1 0
149 171

Total 233 85 46 30 26 24 14 13 5 237 713

Length of Stay for Inmates Serving More Than 1 Year in Segregation by Facility

Dixon Dwight Menard Pontiac Stateville Tamms Total

1 To 2 Years

3

3

11

104

1

5

127

2 To 3 Years

1

3

1

50

0

7

62

3 To 4 Years

0

3

1

25

0

1

30

4 To 5 Years

0

0

0

13

0

2

15

5 To 6 Years

0

0

0

8

0

4

12

6 To 7 Years

0

0

0

4

0

6

10

7 To 8 Years

1

0

1

5

0

4

11

8 To 9 Years

0

0

0

3

0

2

5

9 To 10 Years

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

More Than 10 Years

0

1

0

4

0

12

17

Total

5

10

14

217

1

43

290

*Includes cases without a planned-end-date entered into OTS.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:75
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
June 30, 2012

Parent Facility Level 1 - Maximum Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Tamms CC Level 1 - Total Level 2 -Secure Medium Hill CC Lawrence CC Pinckneyville CC Western Illinois CC Level 2 - Total Level 3 - High Medium Big Muddy River CC Danville CC Dixon CC Illinois River CC Shawnee CC Level 3 - Total Level 4 - Medium Centralia CC Graham CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Sheridan CC Level 4 - Total Level 5 - High Minimum Decatur CC Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Taylorville CC Level 5 - Total Level 6 - Minimum East Moline CC Southwestern Illinois CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Level 6 - Total
Total

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 06/30/12

(OERHP101) as of 06/30/12 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Beds

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

127 494 954 193 530 2,298

75 400 729 173 170 1,547

44 302 653
89 72 1,160

0

44

0

302

5

658

1

90

96

168

102

1,262

111

88

57

218

117

76

231

194

145

108

80

42

668

479

320

0

57

9

85

3

148

0

42

12

332

60

45

32

87

54

24

179

98

111

59

53

17

112

100

62

497

350

246

0

32

0

24

1

112

0

17

0

62

1

247

54

52

35

60

41

20

11

8

1

50

49

14

48

13

1

223

163

71

0

35

1

21

0

1

0

14

0

1

1

72

16

2

0

19

6

4

15

8

3

14

8

1

64

24

8

0

0

0

4

0

3

0

1

0

8

32 8
66 32 138
3,888

25 6
30 27 88
2,651

11 4
16 10 41
1,846

0

11

0

4

0

16

0

10

0

41

116

1,962

Inmates with a

Segregation

Difference

Assignment as of from 12/31/11

December 31, 2011 to 06/30/12

Institution Population as of 06/30/12 Inmates

57

-13

344

-42

659

-1

99

-9

199

-31

1,358

-96

982 3,573 1,817 3,707
364 10,443

56

1

118

-33

169

-21

37

5

380

-48

1,807 2,286 2,402 2,053 8,548

28

4

30

-6

74

38

22

-5

81

-19

235

12

1,893 1,803 2,282 2,052 1,996 10,026

43

-8

37

-16

0

1

4

10

6

-5

90

-18

1,537 1,780
999 1,905 1,648 7,869

0

0

0

4

8

-5

3

-2

11

-3

683 1,580 1,211 1,188 4,662

12

-1

4

0

5

11

11

-1

32

9

2,106

-144

1,298 699
1,639 1,886 5,522
47,070

December 2011 Stats Difference

3,834 54

2,759 -108

1,969 -123

137

2,106

-21

-144

47,163 -93

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:76
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Sentence Imposed Compared to the Actual Length of Stay in Segregation
Segregation Assignment as of June 30, 2012

Length of Stay in Segregation
3 months or less 3 to 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 5 years 5 to 6 years 6 to 7 years 7 to 8 years 8 to 9 years 9 to 10 years More than 10 years
Total

1 Year 1 to 2 or Less Years

1,049

26

193

40

64

91

0

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,306 197

2 to 3 Years
9 8 20 39 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81

3 to 4 4 to 5 Years Years

0

1

7

3

6

2

13

7

12

9

4

5

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

42

29

Segregation Sentence Imposed

5 to 6 Years

6 to 7 Years 7 to 8 Years

8 to 9 Years 9 to 10 Years

More than 10 Years*

2

0

1

3

1

1

5

6

7

6

2

2

2

1

1

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

21

23

1

0

0

1

1

1

2

5

6

2

2

2

3

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

13

1

118

0

12

0

12

0

8

3

11

1

12

1

8

1

6

1

5

0

7

0

8

0

2

0

17

8

226

Total
1,207 268 199 125 61 30 18 12 8 7 8 2 17
1,962

1 To 2 Years 2 To 3 Years 3 To 4 Years 4 To 5 Years 5 To 6 Years 6 To 7 Years 7 To 8 Years 8 To 9 Years 9 To 10 Years More Than 10 Years*
Total

Dixon Dwight

6

8

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

2

3

11

16

Segregation Sentences Imposed Greater than 1 Year by Facility

Illinois

Graham Lawrence River Logan Menard Pinckneyville

0

1

0

0

29

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

9

0

0

7

3

1

10

0

0

43

3

Pontiac 141 69 38 29 18 18 15 11 6 68 413

Stateville 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 9

Tamms 10 2 3 0 2 2 0 1 0
130 150

Total 197 81 42 29 21 23 16 13 8 226 656

Length of Stay for Inmates Serving More Than 1 Year in Segregation by Facility

Dixon Dwight Menard Pontiac Tamms

Total

1 To 2 Years

4

4

7

108

2

125

2 To 3 Years

1

2

1

51

6

61

3 To 4 Years

0

2

1

25

2

30

4 To 5 Years

1

1

0

14

2

18

5 To 6 Years

0

0

0

8

4

12

6 To 7 Years

0

0

0

5

3

8

7 To 8 Years

0

0

1

2

4

7

8 To 9 Years

1

0

0

4

3

8

9 To 10 Years

0

0

0

2

0

2

More Than 10 Years

0

1

0

4

12

17

Total

7

10

10

223

38

288

*Includes cases without a planned-end-date entered into OTS.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:77
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Housing Utilization and Population Dissemination, and Institution Population
December 31, 2012

Parent Facility Closed Maximum Security Tamms CC Maximum Security Dwight CC Menard CC Pontiac CC Stateville CC Maximum Security Total Medium Security Big Muddy River CC Centralia CC Danville CC Dixon CC Graham CC Hill CC Illinois River CC Lawrence CC Lincoln CC Logan CC Pinckneyville CC Shawnee CC Sheridan CC Western Illinois CC Medium Security Total Minimum Security Decatur CC East Moline CC Jacksonville CC Robinson CC Southwestern Illinois CC Taylorville CC Vandalia CC Vienna CC Minimum Security Total
Total

Housing Availability Report

Inmates with a Segregation Assignment as of 12/31/12

(OERHP101) as of 12/31/12 Disciplinary Segregation Administrative Detention

Total

Beds

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

Inmates

0

0

0

0

0

127 390 914 220 1,651

109 348 760 197 1,414

54 307 709 127 1,197

0

54

13

320

120

829

5

132

138

1,335

60

50

34

54

50

30

87

57

27

179

139

57

60

52

27

111

100

53

59

57

8

142

124

109

11

10

0

106

65

18

231

191

143

112

100

58

48

28

11

108

83

51

1,368

1,106

626

0

34

0

30

0

27

1

58

0

27

0

53

0

8

0

109

0

0

0

18

0

143

0

58

0

11

0

51

1

627

16 48 19 15
8 14 66 32 218
3,237

0 31 10 10
7 8 36 30 132
2,652

0 10
0 9 1 1 25 8 54
1,877

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

9

0

1

0

1

0

25

0

8

0

54

139

2,016

Inmates with a

Segregation

Difference

Assignment as of from 12/31/11

December 31, 2011 to 12/31/12

Institution Population as of 12/31/12 Inmates

199

-199

0

57

-3

344

-24

659

170

99

33

1,159

176

976 3,664 1,937 3,879 10,456

28

6

43

-13

30

-3

74

-16

37

-10

56

-3

22

-14

118

-9

0

0

4

14

169

-26

81

-23

6

5

37

14

705

-78

1,914 1,552 1,811 2,413 1,958 1,827 2,070 2,375 1,011 1,771 2,474 2,065 1,914 2,071 27,226

0

0

12

-2

0

0

8

1

4

-3

3

-2

5

20

11

-3

43

11

2,106

-90

697 1,405 1,603 1,206
683 1,200 1,654 1,925 10,373
48,055

December 2011 Stats Difference

3,834 -597

2,759 -107

1,969 -92

137

2,106

2

-90

47,163 892

Prepared by Planning and Research

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:78
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Segregation Sentence Imposed Compared to the Actual Length of Stay in Segregation
Segregation Assignment as of December 31, 2012

Length of Stay in Segregation
3 months or less 3 to 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 5 years 5 to 6 years 6 to 7 years 7 to 8 years 8 to 9 years 9 to 10 years More than 10 years
Total

1 Year or Less
1,068 240 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,382

Segregation Sentence Imposed More than 10
1 to 2 Years 2 to 3 Years 3 to 4 Years 4 to 5 Years 5 to 6 Years 6 to 7 Years 7 to 8 Years 8 to 9 Years 9 to 10 Years Years*

49

9

2

1

1

3

1

0

2

117

49

11

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

35

65

20

12

4

3

3

1

1

1

13

31

27

17

5

5

3

1

5

1

6

0

11

6

7

9

3

3

2

4

5

0

0

5

4

2

5

2

2

1

13

0

0

0

2

3

0

1

3

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

194

78

42

23

24

19

10

15

12

217

1 To 2 Years 2 To 3 Years 3 To 4 Years 4 To 5 Years 5 To 6 Years 6 To 7 Years 7 To 8 Years 8 To 9 Years 9 To 10 Years More Than 10 Years*
Total

Dixon 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

Dwight 8 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 15

Segregation Sentences Imposed Greater than 1 Year by Facility

Hill

Lawrence Menard Pinckneyville Pontiac

2

1

25

1

142

0

0

1

0

69

0

0

1

0

41

0

0

0

0

23

0

0

0

0

23

0

0

1

0

17

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

15

0

0

0

0

12

0

0

7

0

199

2

1

35

1

551

Stateville 11 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 23

Vandalia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 194 78 42 23 24 19 10 15 12 217 634

Length of Stay for Inmates Serving More Than 1 Year in Segregation by Facility

Dixon

Dwight

Menard

Pontiac Stateville

1 To 2 Years

2

3

3

92

1

2 To 3 Years

0

2

1

47

0

3 To 4 Years

1

0

1

32

0

4 To 5 Years

0

0

0

13

0

5 To 6 Years

0

0

0

10

0

6 To 7 Years

0

0

0

5

0

7 To 8 Years

0

0

1

3

0

8 To 9 Years

0

0

0

5

0

9 To 10 Years

0

0

0

3

0

More Than 10 Years

0

1

0

4

0

Total

3

6

6

214

1

Total 101 50 34 13 10 5 4 5 3 5 230

*Includes cases without a planned-end-date entered into OTS.

Prepared by Planning and Research

Total
1,253 336 197 101 50 34 13 10 5 4 5 3 5
2,016

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:79
Exhibit E

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:80

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:81

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:82

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:83

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:84
Exhibit F

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:85
Reducing Prisoner Isolation: An Innovative Approach to Classification and Management of Segregation, Control Units, and Supermax
Statement of the Problem While conducting research for Confronting Confinement, the report of the Vera Commission
on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, Vera staff learned that, since the mid-1980s when the country’s first supermax prisons were built, the trend has been toward increased reliance on isolation of prisoners in segregation units and in supermax prisons as a disciplinary and management tool. Between 1995 and 2000, there was a 40% increase of prisoners in segregation beds, and this does not include all supermax beds added during that period. In contrast, the prison population increased only 28% during those years.1 With the design of environments that nearly eliminate human interaction, there has also been a trend toward increasingly severe conditions of isolation, not only in supermax prisons but also in segregation units in prisons and jails nationally.2
Extreme isolation has unquestionably severe consequences for individuals. Extensive research in the fields of psychology and social psychology documents dramatically negative effects of isolation on individuals, and on prisoners in particular.3 Long periods of time in isolating conditions can cause serious and sometimes lasting deterioration of prisoners’ mental
1 The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. (2006). Confronting Confinement, p. 56. Available at www.prisoncommission.org. 2 Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-Five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53, 709; Human Rights Watch. (2000). Out of Sight: Super-Maximum Security Confinement in the United States. Available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/supermax/. 3 Haney, C. (2003). Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and ‘Supermax’ Confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(I), 124-156.

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:86
health. Studies also demonstrate significantly higher rates of suicide in segregation and other forms of “solitary confinement” than in the general prison population.4
There also is evidence that long-term segregation has negative consequences for institutional and public safety by increasing prisoner-on-staff and prisoner-on-prisoner assaults as well as recidivism rates post-release, although we do not know enough about these outcomes or about the consequences of holding large numbers of prisoners in long-term segregation over time. The small amount of existing evidence on the impact of isolation on the behavior of prisoners, once they are released, suggests that long periods in isolating conditions within a prison or jail may increase recidivism among prisoners who are released directly from segregation.5 Other evidence suggests that working in long-term segregation can be a highly stressful environment for corrections staff due to high rates of prisoner-on-staff assaults.6
In addition to human costs, the monetary costs of the use of isolating confinement are significant. On average, the operating costs for supermax cells are over 50% greater than general population cells.7 Systems that run supermax facilities justify the higher costs by theoretical savings to the rest of the system that would otherwise absorb a population of prisoners thought to be difficult to manage. However, meaningful cost-benefit analyses that look at the system-wide impact of long-term segregation on costs to a state have not yet been conducted.
4 Hayes, L. M., & Rowan, J.R. (1988). National Study of Jail Suicides: Seven Years Later. National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. Available at http://nicic.org/Library/006540. 5 See, Lovell, D., Johnson, L.C., & Cain, K.C. (2007). Recidivism of Supermax Prisoners in Washington State. Crime Delinquency, 53, 633; Lovell, D., & Johnson, L.C. (2004). Felony and Violent Recidivism Among Supermax Prison Inmates in Washington State: A Pilot Study. University of Washington. Available at http://www.son.washington.edu/faculty/fac-page-files/Lovell-SupermaxRecdivism-4-1904.pdf. 6 Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2001). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge. (3rd ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; Rhodes, L. (2004). Total Confinement: Madness and Reason in the Maximum Security Prison. Berkeley: University of California Press. 7 Mears, D. (2006). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Supermax Prison. Urban Institute.
2

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:87
In sum, there is growing empirical evidence of negative effects of segregation on individuals, institutional safety, and community safety after release, and dangerous gaps in our knowledge about the ways that segregation is being used and its overall behavioral and monetary costs. Despite this, the trend in the United States is toward increasing reliance on its use. Project Design and Implementation
Given these concerns, Vera believes that a promising path toward enhancing applicable knowledge in this area and reversing the increase in the use of long-term segregation is through demonstrations of innovative alternatives and measuring the impact these changes have on institutional safety, public safety, and costs.
Corrections departments and state governments are reluctant to risk significant change, despite compelling arguments about the costliness of segregation units—both monetarily, as well as foreseeable future costs.8 However, litigation has motivated a number of state departments of correction, particularly Ohio’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) and Mississippi’s Department of Corrections (DOC), to test creative alternatives. Their efforts have resulted in massive reductions in the number of prisoners held in long-term segregation settings with no apparent significant negative effects.9
Currently we have an exciting invitation to build on their successes by working with Dr. James Austin to (a) adapt the strategies employed in Ohio and Mississippi for the State of Maryland’s Department of Public Safety and Corrections Services (DPSCS) and the State of Illinois’s Department of Corrections (DOC), (b) research innovative approaches to lessen isolation for prisoners who must remain in segregation units, and (c) measure outcomes of the demonstration project overall. The Maryland DPSCS and the Illinois DOC are eager to have us
8 Gawande, A. (2009, March 30). Hellhole. The New Yorker.
3

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:88
assist them in addressing what they see as serious problems arising from over-reliance on longterm segregation to manage their populations. Project Description
The Vera Institute of Justice proposes to demonstrate an innovative and replicable approach to the safe reduction of prisoners held in long-term segregation (any unit or facility, such as a control unit or supermax, where prisoners are held for weeks, months, or years and locked down at least 21 hours a day). This will be done in partnership with the Ohio DRC, Mississippi DOC, Maryland DPSCS, and Illinois DOC by building on recent innovations pioneered by Dr. Austin in the Ohio and Mississippi prison systems, which safely reduced the numbers of prisoners in long-term segregation by approximately 80%10 and significantly changed the environment in long-term segregation in ways that lessened the isolation experienced by prisoners who remained in those units. Dr. Austin will work directly with Vera as we evaluate these successes and apply this promising approach to the Maryland and Illinois prison facilities.
Approach The project will use a five-pronged approach to develop unique knowledge and demonstrate a critical innovation to the corrections field. During a three-year period: I. Vera staff will collaborate closely with Dr. Austin to formally evaluate methods and outcomes of the significant reduction of prisoners in long-term segregation by the Ohio DRC and the Mississippi DOC, based on the new classification and management approach. II. Vera staff also will conduct a comprehensive review of innovative practices in other state prisons and jails that have sought to lessen the use or mitigate the isolating effects of long-
10 Ohio reduced its population in supermax confinement from roughly 800 to 100, and Mississippi reduced its population from roughly 1000 to 90.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:89
term segregation, transition prisoners out of isolation, and repurpose space within segregation units in order to identify successful, replicable models for use in facilities nationally.
III. At the same time, Vera and Dr. Austin will assess how Maryland’s DPSCS and Illinois’s DOC currently use long-term segregation and establish baselines on conditions in those systems.
IV. Based on effective practices in Ohio, Mississippi, and elsewhere, Vera then will work with Maryland’s DPSCS and Illinois’s DOC to design and implement a replicable approach to reduce both states’ use of isolating confinement by reducing the numbers of prisoners in longterm segregation and providing programming to prisoners who must remain in those units. This will involve the design and implementation of a classification tool modeled after those used in Ohio and Mississippi, as well as helping Maryland and Illinois to implement one or more best practice programs or strategies for prisoners in facilities who remain in long-term segregation.
V. Finally, Vera will work with Maryland’s DPSCS and Illinois’s DOC to develop performance measures and provide technical assistance as they establish a system for collecting standardized data to evaluate the impact that reduction in their segregated population has on institutional and public safety in Maryland and Illinois, as well as on overall costs to the states. These five prongs are described below. I. Evaluation – Macro Effects of Isolating Forms of Confinement on Behavior and Costs
As noted, the Ohio DRC and the Mississippi DOC have made dramatic strides in reducing the number of prisoners they hold in long-term segregation—from roughly 800 to 100 in Ohio and 1000 to 90 in Mississippi—without apparent significant negative effects, and significantly changed the environment in segregation through innovative efforts. Although the reforms in Ohio and Mississippi apparently were successful without raising levels of violence in the states’ prisons, and by some accounts have reduced both violence and costs, these outcomes must be
5

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:90
formally confirmed and evaluated to provide persuasive evidence to other jurisdictions that it is possible to achieve reductions in long-term segregation and reduce overall costs without raising levels of violence in the facilities. Processes associated with successful—as well as unsuccessful—outcomes also must be rigorously documented and evaluated to adapt and replicate these approaches in other corrections systems.
Reductions in the number of prisoners in long-term segregation also may lower recidivism rates for prisoners, who otherwise would spend long periods of time in isolating conditions that damage their mental health and ability to subsequently adjust to normal social environments and interactions. This possibility also has not been evaluated. Vera will complete a comprehensive evaluation of the methods and outcomes in Ohio and Mississippi, which will include a costbenefit analysis and tracking recidivism outcomes for prisoners who have been released.
In this part of the project, Vera research staff will work with the Ohio DRC, the Mississippi DOC, and Dr. Austin to conduct an in-depth documentation and evaluation of methods and outcomes, in order to measure the long-term effects of significant reductions in the use of longterm segregation on institutional safety, fiscal costs of incarceration, and recidivism rates.11 Among the dimensions assessed will be: (a) the impact that the release of large numbers of prisoners from long-term segregation has had on system-wide levels of violence and other dynamics in Ohio and Mississippi prisons; (b) the impact these changes have had on fiscal costs system-wide; and (c) the impact, if any, those changes have had on individual outcomes for prisoners who were released.
11 See, Lawrence, Sarah and Daniel P. Mears, “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Supermax Prisons: Critical Steps and Considerations,” Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, August 2004, http://www.urban.org/publications/411047.html. There are few examinations of the costs of supermax incarceration but this resource from the Urban Institute raises important questions that will guide our inquiry.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:91
As part of this effort, Vera will convene an interdisciplinary focus group to include corrections professionals, researchers, and advocates from within and outside of Ohio and Mississippi to develop variables and values for a cost-benefit analysis of each state’s reforms. Although the project’s timeframe does not allow for the completion of a long-term recidivism study, we will put standardized data collection tools into place in order to launch a recidivism study in both Ohio and Mississippi and will be able to collect preliminary recidivism data in Ohio, which began to reduce its segregated population more than seven years ago.
Results of this evaluation will provide support to leaders in other states and counties who would like to find alternatives to large-scale reliance on segregation and isolation but who have not been confident enough of the benefits of an alternative approach. The evaluation also will inform the demonstration projects we develop for Maryland and Illinois, which will become replicable models for innovative change nationally. Vera will produce Brief Reports and publish results of this evaluation before the end of the project, and will make presentations at conferences and to other audiences as requested in order to share findings. Evaluation findings will be packaged in user-friendly formats suitable for a variety of stakeholders and target audiences and made readily accessible through web-links, announcements in trade publications, and other mechanisms.
II. Best Practices Review – Alternative Methods and Their Outcomes Vera has been collecting national information informally prior to this proposal on innovative
programs in segregation units designed to lessen isolation and provide opportunities for prisoners to “step down” into lower security environments. For example, the Hampden County Sheriff’s Office has undertaken significant changes in its segregation unit following its review of the recommendations made in Confronting Confinement. Hampden County’s classification staff
7

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:92
worked to reduce the number of prisoners who end up in segregation and significantly shortened the periods of time they spend there. Program and mental health staff introduced new programs, structured times to get prisoners out of their cells more and engage them in physical activity, and developed other strategies to mitigate the damage to mental health that is endemic in isolating environments.12 Vera also has begun to study other types of alternative programming, such as those in New York and Iowa for mentally ill prisoners who are ill suited to segregation units but difficult to manage in the general population.
For this project, Vera will conduct a rigorous review of alternatives to long-term segregation nationally in order to identify best practices and supplement lessons learned through the evaluation of Ohio’s and Mississippi’s efforts. Vera will produce a Brief Report on its best practices review approximately 18 months into the project. III. and IV. Research and Pilot Demonstration – Reducing Reliance on Isolation-
Segregation in the Maryland DPSCS and the Illinois DOC In this stage of the project, Vera will partner with both Maryland’s DPSCS and Illinois’s DOC to demonstrate that it is possible to adapt and replicate the innovations pioneered in Ohio and Mississippi to create positive change in the absence of litigation. The key aspects of this demonstration are described below. Research Questions to be Answered – How Many, Who, Why, and How Long? During the first six months of the project, while formal evaluations are being conducted in Ohio and Mississippi, Vera will begin a preliminary assessment in Maryland and Illinois to learn: (a) how many people are being held in long-term segregation, (b) characteristics of those prisoners, (c) why they are housed in long-term segregation, (d) how long they typically remain
12 Conversation with Richard McCarthy, Hampden County Sheriff’s Office. Also, see, http://www.hcsdmass.org/SegHousingUnit.htm.
8

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:93
there, (e) what pathways are structurally available to transfer out of segregation, and (f) how those transfer pathways are utilized, and under what conditions.13 Vera also will establish a baseline for violent incidents and other relevant measures for long-term segregation and other security levels in Maryland’s and Illinois’s facilities. Vera and Dr. Austin will work closely with both the Maryland DPSCS and Illinois DOC to gather administrative data, including admission and release profiles for prisoners in long-term segregation as well as on policies governing the use of long-term segregation. Once these data are gathered, Vera will conduct analyses to obtain a picture of the populations involved and of policies and procedures that will be affected by implementation of new practices.
Development and Implementation of New Classification Instrument When these analyses are completed, Vera and Dr. Austin will work with Maryland DPSCS and Illinois DOC staff to develop classification criteria similar to those used in Mississippi and Ohio, tailored to Maryland’s and Illinois’s unique populations and needs. We will then examine the case files of every prisoner currently held in long-term segregation in each state and score them, based on new classification criteria, to develop models that identify who would be transferred and who would remain in segregation if the new classification instruments were implemented. These models will give Maryland DPSCS and Illinois DOC staff an opportunity to make adjustments to the instruments to ensure that the outcomes are appropriate and the systems can accommodate the populations that will transition out of long-term segregation. We also will
13 The Illinois Department of Corrections recently conducted a review of its Closed Maximum Security Unit at the Tamms Correctional Facility, which has received a great deal of news attention due to the long terms prisoners are spending there and concerns about conditions. This project would partner Vera with the Illinois DOC in its efforts to reduce the numbers of prisoners at Tamms, reduce the lengths of stay at Tamms, and to improve conditions there. However, the Illinois DOC has asked us to do this as part of a larger review of all of the prisoners in long-term segregation system-wide.
9

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:94
work with the Maryland DPSCS and Illinois DOC to help them develop policies to implement their new classification instruments. Actual implementation will begin approximately fourteen to sixteen months into the project.
Reducing Isolating Conditions in Segregation - Implementation of Innovative Programs and Strategies Although we expect to make significant reductions in Maryland’s and Illinois’s segregated populations through the implementation of the new classification instruments, this will not address all of the concerns arising from reliance on long-term segregation. If a prison system’s infrastructure is designed to house a certain number of prisoners in segregation, removing prisoners from those units will inevitably create strain on other facilities or units in the system. Significantly reducing an agency’s reliance on segregation requires a re-purposing of space. Perhaps more importantly, there will be a significant portion of prisoners who might be moved out of long-term segregation safely, but not without alternative interventions or some kind of transition. There also will be prisoners who must remain segregated. When new classification criteria are agreed upon by Maryland DPSCS and Illinois DOC staff and shifts that will occur as a result become more clear (how many prisoners will be released from segregation, how many may transition out over the course of a year or more, and how many and who will remain in long-term segregation), Vera will develop recommendations for Maryland and Illinois based on Vera’s comprehensive best practices review and what has been learned from the experiences of the Ohio DRC and Mississippi DOC during Prongs I and II. Vera will make these recommendations within the first eighteen months of the project. During the project’s second and third year, Vera will work with the Maryland DPSCS and Illinois DOC to accomplish one or more of the following: (a) implement strategies for repurposing segregation units, (b) develop programs to manage segregated prisoners in less
10

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:95
isolating environments, and/or (c) create programs and interventions to safely move prisoners out of segregation and help them succeed in the general population, depending on the characteristics and capacities of the facilities involved, types of populations, best practices in other locales, and conversations with Maryland and Illinois staff. V. Data Collection and Performance Measures
Finally, Vera will work with Maryland’s DPSCS and Illinois’s DOC to develop a set of performance measures for the project that allows them to evaluate the impact that reductions in the segregated populations have on institutional and public safety and overall costs to the state. In this component, Vera will provide technical assistance to DPSCS and DOC research staff as they establish a system for collecting standardized data to track key performance measures.
Although proponents of segregation argue that they can show declines in violence in some systems as a result of efforts to segregate the most disruptive prisoners, we believe Maryland and Illinois will be able to demonstrate that alternatives to segregation can work and provide significant benefits without serious compromises in safety in jurisdictions where they are implemented thoughtfully. The Maryland and Illinois Demonstration Projects will give us the opportunity to assess whether systems with fewer prisoners in long-term segregation are not merely “as safe as” those with large portions of the population under tight control, but safer: whether reducing the use of segregation can reduce violence and stress on staff, improve reentry outcomes and long-term recidivism rates, and also save money.
Vera’s technical assistance also will help Maryland’s DPSCS and Illinois’s DOC to create standardized data collection instruments that track sets of performance measures over time and allow them to assess the impact of the changes they implement on (a) system-wide violence and other relevant dynamics; (b) individual prisoners and outcomes related to them, including longer-
11

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:96
term recidivism rates; and (c) costs and cost-savings associated with de-populating their longterm segregation units. During the second and third years of the project, Vera will work closely with the Maryland DPSCS and Illinois DOC to help them begin tracking these data—most of which they already collect for other purposes—and will monitor their analyses through the first 18 months of implementation of the new classification instruments.
Vera will produce a Brief Report describing initial results from these evaluations and will make initial findings more widely available at the discretion of the Maryland DPSCS, Illinois DOC, and the funder. For example, such information could be presented at relevant professional conferences and to jurisdictions interested in adapting and implementing these model approaches. Maryland’s DPSCS and Illinois’s DOC will be prepared to continue to evaluate their progress against the performance measures long after the project’s conclusion and will be able to track the impact of the changes implemented on longer-term recidivism rates. Vera’s Capabilities and Competencies
Vera is in a unique position to work with Maryland’s DPSCS, Illinois’s DOC, as well as with the Ohio DRC and Mississippi DOC, because of the relationships that Vera and the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons have developed with corrections administrators across the country. We also will be able to reach prisons and jails nationally to answer fundamental questions about their uses of isolation and the effects of these efforts and to report on successful alternatives. Vera staff is highly experienced in these kinds of technical assistance and research, is a trusted voice in the corrections world, and will be well positioned to encourage other jurisdictions to replicate the model approach developed and tested in Maryland and Illinois.
12

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:97 Throughout the project, Vera will work closely with Dr. James Austin, who has a proven track record of success in Ohio and Mississippi and an excellent reputation as someone who works well with corrections administrators and understands the immense pressures on corrections directors and the systems in which they work. We believe that his success in dramatically reducing the numbers of prisoners held in long-term segregation in Ohio and Mississippi and his willingness to help Vera adapt his classification instrument to other state systems positions us to help Maryland and Illinois significantly reduce the number of prisoners in segregation and create replicable models that can be adapted for use in many other jurisdictions. Vera has more than forty-five years of experience conducting program evaluations and highly sophisticated research on mechanisms and outcomes in large criminal justice systems. We have also created a dedicated Cost-benefit Analysis Center at Vera, which will enhance this critical piece of the evaluation. We look forward to working with the states of Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, and Mississippi in taking advantage of this important and timely opportunity.
13

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:98
Exhibit G

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:99
IDOC Segregation Study Major Findings
1. The current system is based predominantly on punishment and degraded conditions of confinement, which assumes that current levels of punishment are deterring subsequent behavior.
2. The conduct exhibited by prisoners admitted to DS and ADS warrants sanctions, but it is not clear that the types of placement and lengths of stay are proportionate to prior and current negative behavior.
3. Prisoners in minimum custody who receive a major ticket receive DS rather than a change in custody.
4. There appears to be no formal policy standardizing wardens’ authority to reduce the amount of time in DS for good behavior based on an agreed-upon plan with the prisoner, nor is there a structured “re-entry” process for prisoners returning to the general population from DS.
5. The conditions of confinement in DS are not acceptable with respect to recreation, showers, mental health treatment, or contacts with clinical-services staff, and are not in line with best or standard practices in other systems.
6. The use of the Step Down Program from ADS is extremely limited. In part, this maintains the size of the ADS population and contributes to long stays. Pontiac has achieved positive outcomes in their ADRMP Step Down Program and believes they can successfully serve more participants in the program.
7. There are wide disparities in depth and adequacy of services across facilities. Menard and Stateville both express needs for more mental health coverage, dedicated housing, space for treatment groups, services, and programming. Tamms visits also raise concerns about the availability of adequate mental health care for long-term prisoners there.
8. There is a need to standardize key policies and program attributes for DS and ADS across the system. This could be facilitated by policy revision, training, and requirements for uniform application.
9. The proportion of women in DS is almost twice that of men. There are also a limited number of general population beds for women after they complete DS.
10. A significant portion of the DS population has segregation time that exceeds their time left to serve.
11. A significant number of segregation prisoners who are high-risk are approaching their prison release dates.
12. There is a lack of coordination between DOC, parole supervision, and law enforcement on the release of high-risk prisoners from ADS/DS to the community.

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 14 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:116

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS COLEMAN, AARON FILLMORE, )

JEROME JONES, individually and on behalf

)

of a class of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, Acting Director of the )

Illinois Department of Corrections,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 15 C 5596 Hon. James B. Zagel

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, by and through her attorney, LISA MADIGAN,

Illinois Attorney General, hereby move this Honorable Court to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failing to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted, as fully set forth in their Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Motion to

Dismiss. Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion in her favor.

Respectfully submitted,

LISA MADIGAN Attorney General of Illinois

/s/ Lyle K. Henretty LYLE K. HENRETTY ERIN R. GARD Assistant Attorney General General Law Bureau 100 W. Randolph, 13th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 814-3327/5163

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:117

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS COLEMAN, AARON FILLMORE, )

JEROME JONES, individually and on behalf

)

of a class of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, Acting Director of the )

Illinois Department of Corrections,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 15 C 5596 Hon. James B. Zagel

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, by and through her attorney LISA MADIGAN,

Attorney General of Illinois, submits the following Memorandum of Law in Support of Her

Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b):

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs’ Complaint purports to be a class action seeking to prevent the use of “extreme

isolation” by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) for both administrative and

punitive purposes. However, inmates in prison have no liberty interest in avoiding segregation.

Further, the actual allegations set forth therein use varied terms such as “extreme isolation,”

“segregation,” and “solitary confinement” interchangeably, without defining or explaining these

terms. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs complain of “isolation, the allegations as to each named

Defendant do not identify inmates who are actually housed in a cell by themselves, “deprived of

meaningful social interaction.” To the contrary, the named Plaintiffs have cellmates and interact

regularly with security and medical staff. The alleged constitutional deprivations set forth in the

Complaint are varied and myriad, but not specifically related to being kept in “extreme

1

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:118
isolation.” Departing from their claim of “isolation,” the named Plaintiffs raise issues of cleanliness and pest control, failure to be provided with individual medical care, and failure of due process. These are individual claims at best, and do not state a cause of action for a class. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. To the extent that it is possible to determine what Plaintiffs are complaining about, their claims should be severed pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. General Allegations. In its opening paragraphs, the Complaint purports to seek class certification for all IDOC inmates who are "subjected to harmful punitive isolation sentences and who are or who will be confined in Illinois prisons." Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Docket No. 1 (hereinafter “Compl.” or “Complaint”) at ¶ 1. Plaintiffs also conclude, without providing any factual basis, that within the IDOC the terms "solitary confinement, disciplinary segregation, investigative status, and administrative detention" are all interchangeable terms meaning "extreme isolation." Compl. at ¶1. Plaintiffs then allege that since the IDOC housed approximately 2,300 inmates in one form of segregation or another as of June 30, 2013, that all of these inmates were being held in "extreme isolation." Compl. at ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that inmates in "extreme isolation" are housed in "tiny, often windowless" cells, and "deprived of meaningful social interaction and any ability to engage in any meaningful or productive physical or mental activity." Compl. at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs allege that keeping Plaintiff's in "solitary confinement" is bad for their health and otherwise damaging. Compl. at ¶ 14. Plaintiffs cite to a number of articles, as well as non-binding standards and practices that discuss the dangers of "extreme isolation." Compl. at ¶¶ 14-19. However, at no
2

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:119
point do Plaintiffs define, identify, or allege what Plaintiffs, or the articles, standards, and practices mean by "extreme isolation."
The Complaint identifies certain IDOC policies and procedures related to discipline and punishment within IDOC facilities. Compl. at ¶¶22-40. Plaintiffs argue that the disciplinary hearings themselves are "extremely limited." Compl. at ¶ 28.1 Plaintiffs identify certain infractions that result in "segregation" time, and again extrapolate, without explanation or defining their own terms, that "segregation," "administrative detention" and "extreme isolation" are the same thing. Compl. at ¶28. Further, the Complaint consists of allegations of three different inmates whose only commonality is an alleged isolation. The myriad other claims raised by them consist of individual, personalized, and distinct claims that have no commonality and do not belong in the same lawsuit.
B. Plaintiff Douglas Coleman. Mr. Coleman, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville") alleges that he served eight months in segregation because alcohol was found in his cell, and for two other disciplinary tickets. Compl. at ¶¶ 9, 51, 52. Mr. Coleman refers to his punishment as "segregation," instead of "extreme isolation." Compl. at ¶51-71. Mr. Coleman was not held in isolation. First and foremost, Mr. Coleman admits that he had a cellmate while in segregation. Compl. at ¶ 54. In fact, Mr. Coleman requested to be placed in a cell by himself, and this request was denied. Compl. at ¶¶ 57-58. Mr. Coleman interacted with correctional officers and was allowed to shower while he was in segregation. Compl. at ¶ 55. Mr. Coleman was given access to medical staff and taken to the Health Care Unit while he was in segregation. Compl. at ¶59.
1 Though it is not explicitly clear form the Complaint, it appears that this is one of the bases from Plaintiffs' due process claims.
3

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:120
Further, Mr. Coleman raises the following issues as grounds for his claims: (1) There were insects, birds, and rodents in his cell house; (2) he had a mentally disturbed cellmate; (3) due to his colostomy bag, Mr. Coleman was forced to clean the showers before and after use; (4) failure to provide proper medical care, including use of a wheelchair and cane. Compl. at ¶¶ 5171. There are no allegations in the Complaint that Mr. Coleman was ever placed in isolation of any kind, or even placed in a cell by himself.
C. Plaintiff Aaron Fillmore. Mr. Fillmore, currently an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence") alleges that he has been held in "extreme isolation" for the past 15 years. Compl. at ¶ 10. Specifically, "extreme isolation" is used, as it pertains to Mr. Fillmore, as a catch-all term which encompasses "segregation, Administrative Detention, or Investigative Status." Compl. at ¶10. Mr. Fillmore alleges that he has had little to no physical contact with other people in 15 years. Compl. at ¶ 72. Mr. Fillmore was initially placed in disciplinary segregation 15 years ago, when he pled guilty to injuring a correctional officer while he was incarcerated at Stateville. Compl. at ¶73. For this crime, Mr. Fillmore was given an additional sentence. Compl. at ¶73. Like Mr. Coleman, Mr. Fillmore directly contradicts his claim that he has been kept in "extreme isolation" and has not had contact with other people. Mr. Fillmore alleges that at Lawrence, inmates in Administrative Detention are double-celled. Compl. at ¶ 75. Mr. Fillmore is unhappy being celled with inmates he describes as "mentally ill" because they "make noise 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” Compl. at ¶75. Instead of complaining about being isolated from others, Mr. Fillmore complains that the inmates with which he is incarcerated are causing too much stimulus. Compl. at ¶75.
4

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:121
Mr. Fillmore raises the following issues as grounds for his Complaint: (1) he is not provided with religious programs while in "extreme isolation"; (2) he has been denied reading material; (3) he has been denied his own property, including legal material; (4) he is not given enough exercise or "yard" time; (5) he is not given gloves in the winter; (6) he is only allowed one shower per week; (7) h is blankets are only washed once every three months. Compl. at ¶¶ 75-76. Once again, there are no allegations in the Complaint that Mr. Fillmore was ever placed in isolation of any kind, or even placed in a cell by himself.
D. Plaintiff Jerome Jones. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Jones is in administrative detention segregation at Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence"). Compl. at ¶ 84. Mr. Jones claims that he had been told that he had been placed in administrative segregation due to his involvement in a gang. Compl. at ¶86. Mr. Jones denies that he was associated with gangs while at either Stateville or Lawrence. Compl. at ¶86. Mr. Jones alleges that in segregation, he had the following privileges revoked or reduced: (1) he lost audio-visual privileges; (2) he experienced "decreased access to property, phones, recreation time, showers, and the law library"; (3) he was only permitted showers twice a week; (4) he was only provided with six hours of recreation time per week; (5) he was only permitted four no-contact, pre-approved two-hour visits per month, subject to security measures. Compl. at ¶¶ 87, 89. Mr. Jones does not allege that he did not have a cell-mate, or that he was placed isolated from other inmates/officers.
STANDARD A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6) does not test whether the plaintiff will prevail on the merits but instead whether the claimant has properly
5

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:122
stated a claim. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but a plaintiff’s complaint may not merely state an “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id.
A plaintiff’s complaint must contain allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, at 663, citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, at 663. In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations. McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011). However, legal conclusions and “conclusory allegations merely reciting the elements of the claim are not entitled to this presumption of truth.” Id.
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs Have No Liberty Interest In Avoiding Assignment to Segregation. Plaintiffs’ challenge to being placed in segregation, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim. Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Plaintiffs’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Compl. at p. 35. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the conditions in segregation constitute cruel and unusual punishment, that Defendant has been deliberately indifferent to the extent that Plaintiffs are deprived of basic human needs in “extreme isolation.” Count II seeks injunctive relief pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Compl., p. 36.
6

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:123
To state a due process claim under §1983, a plaintiff must show that the state deprived him of a constitutionally protected interest in “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). Due process is a two-part analysis and Plaintiffs cannot complain that they did not receive procedural due process unless they have first established that they were deprived of a constitutionally protected interest. Id. “An inmate has a due process liberty interest only if the conditions of his or her confinement impose ‘atypical and significant hardship…in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id.
First and foremost, “[a] prisoner has no liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population.” Williams v. Ramos, 71 F.3d 1246, 1248 (7th Cir. 1995). The Constitution does not give rise to a liberty interest in avoiding a transfer to a more adverse or restrictive confinement. Wilkinson v Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (“confinement in any of the State’s institutions is within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose.”). Inmates may be transferred for any reason or for no reason at all. Williams, 71 F.3d at 1248. In Williams, the plaintiff complained that he was locked in a closed-front cell twenty-four hours each day, was not permitted to participate in activities available to general population, was handcuffed whenever he left his cell and had very little contact with inmates or staff. Williams, 71 F.3d at 1249. The Seventh Circuit found that these conditions did not “greatly exceed[] what one could expect from prison life generally…” and accordingly, did not give rise to a liberty interest. Id. “Where there is no liberty interest, there can be no due process violation.” Id. at 1250.
Further, “[t]he due process clause standing alone confers no liberty interest in freedom from state action taken within the sentence imposed.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 480 (1995)(citations omitted). The Supreme Court found in Sandin that a prisoner did not have a
7

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:124
protected liberty interest in remaining free from punitive segregation because this type of confinement did not “present a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of [plaintiff]’s indeterminate sentence.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 485. “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply. [Citations omitted.] In sum, there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).
As such, the Complaint does not allege the deprivation of a liberty interest. Plaintiffs Coleman and Fillmore claim that were/are held in disciplinary segregation. Compl. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 51, 52, 73. They have not alleged any facts (or even conclusions) that their time in disciplinary segregation presented “a dramatic departure from the basic conditions” of their time in the general population. Plaintiff Jones alleges that he was housed in administrative detention. ¶ 84. Courts have repeatedly found that “administrative segregation is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate.” Lekas, 405 F.3d at 609, quoting Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 480, 414 (7th Cir. 1987). Even indefinite placement in administrative segregation does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Bono v. Saxbe, 620 F.2d 609, 614 (7th Cir. 1980). Placement in segregation or administrative detention does not give rise to a liberty interest and this Court need not consider the procedural due process afforded to Plaintiffs in that regard. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
II. In the Alternative, Plaintiffs’ Complaint Should Be Severed Pursuant to George v. Smith.
Even if this Court finds that one or more of the Plaintiffs have stated a claim or claims upon which relief may be granted, these are at best individual claims and should be treated as such. Mr. Coleman complains about the conditions of his confinement in F house at Stateville,
8

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:125
as well as medical care that he believes is inadequate. Compl. at ¶¶ 51-71. Mr. Fillmore complains about being housed with cellmates who are mentally ill, and the lack of privileges he is afforded in segregation at Lawrence. Compl. at ¶¶ 75-76. Finally, Mr. Jones complains about being held in administrative detention due to gang involvement, though he apparently disagrees that he has ever been part of a gang. Compl. at ¶¶ 87, 89. The three Plaintiffs’ allegations are wholly unrelated.
Rule 21 provides in pertinent part that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. As the Seventh Circuit made clear in George v. Smith, “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits,” 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). In George, the Seventh Circuit held that a prisoner’s multi-claim, multi-defendant single suit should instead be brought in separate actions. Id.; see also Harris v. Dart, No. 10 C 6666, 2010 WL 5158134, *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2010) (“The plaintiff must choose a single, core claim to pursue under this case number.”).
The allegations set forth in the Complaint encompass myriad issues, thousands of inmates, and all 44 correctional facilities in Illinois. To the extent each of the putative class members are complaining about their respective medical care, conditions of confinement, and specific claims regarding due process of their disciplinary or administrative segregation, this case would encompass tens of thousands of individual claims. The Northern District would be an improper venue for the majority of said claims. As such, to the extent this Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated claims, these collective claims should be severed into individual claims pursuant to George.
9

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:126

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Defendant GLADYSE TAYLOR requests that this Court grant her Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and for such other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable.

LISA MADIGAN Attorney General of Illinois

Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Lyle K. Henretty LYLE K. HENRETTY ERIN R. GARD Assistant Attorneys General General Law Bureau 100 W. Randolph, 13th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 814-3327/5163

10

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:260

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS COLEMAN, AARON FILLMORE, JEROME JONES, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

No. 15 C 5596 Judge James B. Zagel

John Baldwin, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is

granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Douglas Coleman (“Coleman”), Aaron Fillmore (“Fillmore”), and Jerome

Jones (“Jones”) are inmates who have been or are currently housed in segregation at various

Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) correctional centers. Plaintiffs, who seek to

represent a class of similarly situated inmates placed in IDOC’s segregation housing, bring this suit against Defendant John Baldwin, Acting Director of the IDOC.1 Plaintiffs allege that

Defendant has violated their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments (claim I), and their constitutional due process rights under the

1 After Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed, John Baldwin became Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, thereby replacing previous Acting Director Gladyse C. Taylor as the Defendant in this matter.

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:261
Fourteenth Amendment (claim II). Plaintiffs seek declarative and injunctive relief against Defendant. Because the particulars of their claims differ, I will summarize them separately here.
Douglas Coleman alleges that he served eight months in segregation after receiving multiple disciplinary tickets. He describes segregation conditions that include roaches, mice, and birds inside his cell, as well as unbearably cold temperatures during the winter months. In addition to harsh cell conditions, Coleman alleges that he was forced to share a cell with a mentally ill inmate for at least part of his segregation sentence and that he has been denied showers multiple times. Furthermore, he alleges that, in spite of his limited mobility due to a stroke, IDOC has repeatedly deprived him of a wheelchair and walking cane.
Jerome Jones alleges that IDOC placed him in segregation due to unsubstantiated claims regarding Jones’ gang involvement. Jones asserts he was not notified of the reason for his removal from general population until seven to eight months after transfer to segregation, thereby denying him the opportunity to review evidence against him and present any evidence in his defense. While in segregation, Jones describes experiencing dramatic decreases in his access to his personal property, phones, recreation time, showers, and law library time. Likewise, Jones’ visiting privileges were decreased to four no-contact, pre-approved two-hour visits per month, as compared to the six monthly visits permitted to inmates in general population.
Finally, Aaron Fillmore alleges that he has been continuously held in segregation for approximately 15 years. He has filed multiple grievances challenging his placement in segregation, including his most recent one-year stint in segregation as a result of his alleged gang affiliation. Fillmore alleges that his requests for production and/or review of the letters and phone records on which IDOC relied to support its allegations were arbitrarily denied. He also says he is allowed only one brief shower a week and that his yard time has been drastically

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:262
curtailed and takes place in a “single-person cage.” Fillmore further complains of being denied access to materials from the library, personal property, religious programs, and the chaplain. Last, he alleges that he has, at times, been double-celled in cells that are too small for even one inmate.
Collectively, the Plaintiffs argue that they and the class they seek to represent are subjected to disproportionately harsh and punitive practices of “extreme isolation,” which Plaintiffs say is applied arbitrarily, capriciously, and overzealously. The conditions shared by the purported class include substandard cell conditions, social isolation, and deprivation of basic needs including exercise, nutrition, educational opportunities, and access to good hygiene.
STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) does not test the merits of a claim, but rather the sufficiency of the complaint. Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Id. at 1521. To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). “A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state [a] claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff is unable to prove any set of facts which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1959 (2007).

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:263
DISCUSSION I. Eighth Amendment Claim A. Extreme Isolation
Plaintiffs allege that the “extreme isolation” and “disproportionate punishments for violations of prison rules” they experienced violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. A finding of an Eighth Amendment violation is proper when two requirements are met: first, the alleged violation must be objectively “sufficiently serious,” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324 (1991), meaning it “must result in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977 (1994) (citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399 (1981)). Second, the defendant must have acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Id. (citing Wilson, supra, 501 U.S., at 298, 111 S.Ct., at 2324). Because Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, I will only address the first prong of this analysis.
Plaintiffs assert that their experience of extreme isolation is objectively and sufficiently serious to satisfy the first prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis. In Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 214, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 2389 (2005), the Supreme Court identified several characteristics of the Ohio State Penitentiary (“OSP”) that made its conditions “synonymous with extreme isolation”:
In contrast to any other Ohio prison, including any segregation unit, OSP cells have solid metal doors with metal strips along their sides and bottoms which prevent conversation or communication with other inmates. All meals are taken alone in the inmate’s cell instead of in a common eating area. Opportunities for visitation are rare and in all events are conducted through glass walls . . . . OSP inmates are deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact.

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:264
Id. (emphasis added). Although “extreme isolation” is a somewhat vaguely defined term, Wilkinson makes clear that the near-complete deprivation of environmental or sensory stimuli or human contact may form the basis of a proper Eighth Amendment claim. Here, however, Plaintiffs fail to allege facts demonstrating that they were held in conditions that amount to “extreme isolation,” even if the phrase is interpreted liberally. All three Plaintiffs in the instant case were placed in a more restrictive environment when they were moved to segregation, but there is no indication that they experienced anything like the near-complete deprivation described in Wilkinson. Plaintiffs do not allege that their cells are more restrictive than those outside of segregation housing (e.g., they do not allege that their cell doors prevent communication with inmates in adjacent cells), nor that the conditions placed on visitors are drastically different from the visiting privileges of inmates in general population. Moreover, Coleman and Fillmore admit that they shared their cells with other inmates, which undercuts any argument that these particular plaintiffs experienced sustained and near-complete deprivation of human contact.
The third Plaintiff, Jones, does not allege sufficient facts about the severity of his isolation. While a plaintiff need not prove his case in the complaint, it is not sufficient to offer mere “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Here, the Complaint does not mention whether or not Jones had cellmates during his segregation sentence. Likewise, it fails to provide testable, factual assertions about Jones’ level of isolation aside from conclusory statements about his “continued, never-ending isolation.”

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:265
B. Disproportionate Punishment Plaintiffs also assert that each of them experienced “disproportionate punishments for
violations of prison rules” that are objectively and sufficiently serious to satisfy the first prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis. To determine whether punishment is disproportionate, courts must consider “circumstances surrounding the segregation decision, including, first, the circumstances surrounding the offense, second, the prisoner’s disciplinary record, and, third, the offense for which [the inmate] originally was incarcerated.” Maydun v. Franzen, 704 F.2d 954, 961 (7th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiffs have each stated the circumstances surrounding the offenses for which they were placed in segregation, but none of the three included the offenses for which they were originally incarcerated, and Coleman fails to provide information on his disciplinary record. Thus, it is impossible for me to evaluate the validity of the disproportionate punishment claim as currently pled.
Because Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently state a proper cruel and unusual punishment claim based on either “extreme isolation” or “disproportionate punishment,” this claim is dismissed without prejudice. II. Fourteenth Amendment Claim
“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 2393 (2005). Plaintiffs allege that their protected liberty interest is in avoiding “extreme isolation,” which, they claim, “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300. The Supreme Court has held that while “the Constitution itself does not give rise to

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:266
a liberty interest in avoiding transfer to more adverse conditions of confinement . . . a liberty interest in avoiding particular conditions of confinement may arise from state policies or regulations, subject to the important limitations set forth in Sandin v. Connor.” Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 221-22 (citations omitted). The Court has also held that “the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest . . . is not the language of the regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves ‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” Id. (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. at 2300).
The Seventh Circuit has interpreted these decisions as “establish[ing] that disciplinary segregation can trigger due process protections depending on the duration and conditions of segregation.” Marion v. Columbia Corr. Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). Thus, “a liberty interest may arise if the length of segregated confinement is substantial and the record reveals that the conditions of confinement are unusually harsh.” Id. at 697-98 (emphasis in original). In evaluating whether a liberty interest exists, “both the duration and the conditions of the segregation must be considered in the due process analysis.” Id. at 698 (emphasis in original). As above, I will consider the Plaintiffs’ claims separately.
In Coleman’s case, his segregation sentence spanned six months (plus an additional two months for a separate offense) – a length of time that the Seventh Circuit has held is “not such an extreme term” and, by itself, does not trigger due process rights. Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 533 (7th Cir. 1995). Coleman’s allegations regarding the conditions of his segregation also fail to trigger due process rights. He complains of the presence of insects, mice, and broken windows as well as a restriction on showers and the deprivation of his wheelchair and walking cane. These conditions, however, are not sufficiently harsh or atypical from ordinary prison life to give rise to constitutional due process concerns. For example, the Seventh Circuit has

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:267
previously held that 24-hour-a-day segregation for 70 days in a locked cell, with no access to prison programs or activities, and drastic reduction of exercise privileges were not “actionably different” conditions from those in the general population. Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 610-11 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing to Williams v. Ramos, 71 F.3d 1246 (7th Cir. 1995) and Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 1997)). Even allowing for the possibility that Coleman’s conditions are worse than those described in Lekas, Coleman fails to provide the facts necessary to compare the conditions of his disciplinary segregation to those of inmates in the general population. Therefore, his due process claim is dismissed without prejudice.
Similarly, Fillmore and Jones fail to state proper due process claims. While their periods of segregation lasted longer than Coleman’s -- fifteen years in Fillmore’s case and over one year in Jones’ case -- the living conditions they describe do not rise even to the level described in Lekas. Fillmore alleges drastic reduction of yard time, denial of library materials as well as other personal property, and complete denial of religious programs. Jones alleges decreased privileges and access to personal property, phones, recreation time, showers, and law library time. Both Plaintiffs do compare their conditions and restrictions with those of inmates not in administrative detention. For instance, Fillmore is allowed yard time twice each week for one to two hours, compared to the regular weekly five hours of exercise, and Jones is permitted, at most, four nocontact, pre-approved two-hour visits per month, compared to the regular six visits. But these conditions are similar to (if not slightly improved from) those described in Lekas, which the Seventh Circuit deemed “large indistinguishable from those [conditions] already found not to implicate a prisoner’s remaining liberty interest.” 405 F.3d at 613. Thus, both Fillmore and Jones’ due process claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Case: 1:15-cv-05596 Document #: 29 Filed: 02/11/16 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:268
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, and all of Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without prejudice.
ENTER:

DATE: February 11, 2016

James B. Zagel United States District Judge

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-5596 As of: 11/02/2018 04:23 PM CDT 1 of 4
COX,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−05596

Coleman et al v. Taylor Assigned to: Honorable James B. Zagel Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff Douglas Coleman individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Aaron Fillmore individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Date Terminated: 02/11/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alan S. Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, IL 60646 (773) 769−1411 Email: alan@uplcchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alyssa Elena Ramirez Winston & Strawn Llp 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 558−3267 Email: aramirez@winston.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanna Frances Cornwell Winston & Strawn, Llp 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 558−3187 Email: jcornwell@winston.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimball Richard Anderson Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601−9703 (312) 558−5600 Email: kanderson@winston.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan S. Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alyssa Elena Ramirez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanna Frances Cornwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimball Richard Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-5596 As of: 11/02/2018 04:23 PM CDT 2 of 4

Jerome Jones individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Alan S. Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alyssa Elena Ramirez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanna Frances Cornwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimball Richard Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Gladyse C. Taylor Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections
Service List

represented by Lyle Kevin Henretty Cook County State's Attorney 2030 69 West Washington 20th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 312−603−1426 Email: lyle.henretty@cookcountyil.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Rachel Gard Illinois Attorney General's Office General Law Bureau 100 W. Randolph Street 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814−5163 Email: egard@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Illinois Department of Corrections 100 West Randolph, Suite 4−200 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: DOC.ILNDNotices@doc.illinois.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/24/2015
06/24/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Douglas Coleman, Jerome Jones, Aaron Fillmore; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752−10791746. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Anderson, Kimball) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Anderson, Kimball) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jones by Kimball Richard Anderson (Anderson, Kimball) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jones by Joanna Frances Cornwell (Cornwell, Joanna) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable James B. Zagel. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan Cox. (daj, ) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-5596 As of: 11/02/2018 04:23 PM CDT 3 of 4

06/24/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015 06/30/2015 07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/20/2015
08/14/2015 08/14/2015 08/14/2015 08/14/2015 08/26/2015 10/28/2015 11/19/2015
12/29/2015 01/12/2016 01/12/2016

5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jones by Alan S. Mills (Mills, Alan) (PDF not legible − Docket Text Modified on 6/25/2015) (sxw). (Entered: 06/24/2015)
6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jones by Alyssa Elena Ramirez (Ramirez, Alyssa) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jones by Alan S. Mills (Corrected) (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Gladyse C. Taylor (daj, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Douglas Coleman, Jerome Jones, Aaron Fillmore as to Gladyse C. Taylor on 6/25/2015, answer due 7/16/2015. (Anderson, Kimball) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Gladyse C. Taylor by Lyle Kevin Henretty (Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
10 MOTION by Defendant Gladyse C. Taylor for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint, 1 (Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
11 NOTICE of Motion by Lyle Kevin Henretty for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer, motion for relief 10 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 7/23/2015 at 09:30 AM. (Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time 10 is granted. Answer or otherwise plead to complaint is due on or by 8/14/15. The 7/23/15 motion hearing is stricken, parties need not appear. Mailed notice (lcw, ) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Gladyse C. Taylor by Erin Rachel Gard (Gard, Erin) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
14 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
15 MEMORANDUM by Gladyse C. Taylor in support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 14 (Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
16 NOTICE of Motion by Lyle Kevin Henretty for presentment of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 14 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 8/26/2015 at 09:30 AM. (Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: Motion hearing held. The depositions of Plaintiffs shall occur on or before 10/28/15. Status hearing set for 11/12/15 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice (ep, ) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
18 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: By agreement, the status hearing set for 11/12/15 is stricken and reset to 11/19/15 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (ep, ) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
19 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: Status hearing held. The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 14 : Plaintiffs shall respond on or before 12/29/15. Defendant shall reply on or before 1/12/16. Ruling set for 2/18/16 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (ep, ) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
20 RESPONSE by Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jonesin Opposition to MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 (Anderson, Kimball) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
21 MOTION by Defendant Gladyse C. Taylor for extension of time to file response/reply as to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 14 (Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
22 NOTICE of Motion by Lyle Kevin Henretty for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief 21 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 1/19/2016 at 09:30 AM. (Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 01/12/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-5596 As of: 11/02/2018 04:23 PM CDT 4 of 4

01/15/2016
01/18/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 02/04/2016 02/11/2016
08/19/2016 03/13/2017

23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: Defendant's Motion for an Extension of Time 21 is granted. Defendant shall reply on or before 1/18/16. Hearing set for 1/19/16 is stricken and no appearance is necessary. Mailed notice (ep, ) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
24 REPLY by Defendant Gladyse C. Taylor to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 14 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Henretty, Lyle) (Entered: 01/18/2016)
25 MOTION by Plaintiffs Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jones to strike Portions of 24 Defendant's Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Anderson, Kimball) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
26 MEMORANDUM by Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jones in support of motion to strike 25 (Anderson, Kimball) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
27 NOTICE of Motion by Kimball Richard Anderson for presentment of motion to strike 25 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 2/4/2016 at 09:30 AM. (Anderson, Kimball) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
28 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: Motion hearing held. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Reply 25 is granted. Ruling set for 2/18/16 at 9:30 a.m. will stand. Mailed notice (ep, ) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
29 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: In accordance with the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 14 is granted and all of Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice. Ruling set for 2/18/16 is stricken and no appearance is necessary. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 2/11/2016. Mailed notice(ep, ) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
30 MOTION for joinder of claim (cc, ) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
31 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs' pro se motion for joinder of claim 30 is denied. This case was closed in February 2016, and plaintiffs were represented by counsel. The pro se motion is untimely (having been filed six months after the dismissal of the complaint), and represented parties may not make legal arguments independently of counsel. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/13/2017)