Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02316/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02316-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin P. Woody
Appellant
Dushan Zatecky
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted February 23, 2015*

Decided February 24, 2015 

Before 

 DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

 ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

 DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 14-2316 Appeal from the 

 United States District Court 

BENJAMIN P. WOODY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DUSHAN ZATECKY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 for the Southern District of Indiana, 

Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:13-cv-1580-LJM-DML 

Larry J. McKinney, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Benjamin Woody, an Indiana prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 

civil-rights suit alleging that the prison’s superintendent denied him contact visitation in 

violation of due process and other constitutional rights. We affirm. 

According to Woody’s complaint, his contact visits were revoked in 2012 by the 

superintendent at the Pendleton Correctional Facility, Dushan Zatecky, as discipline for 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 14-2316 Document: 24 Filed: 02/24/2015 Pages: 2
No. 14-2316 Page 2 

“fleeing or physically resisting” a prison staff member. Woody sued Zatecky under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting, among other things, violations of due process and equal 

protection. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, 

explaining that Woody had no protected liberty interest in visitation privileges and did 

not allege being denied contact visits because of membership in a suspect class.1

On appeal Woody challenges the dismissal of his due-process claim by invoking 

an Indiana statute, IND. CODE § 11-11-5-4(4) (2014), that in his view created a liberty 

interest in continued contact visits. Under that statute the Department of Corrections 

“may not impose” as disciplinary action “[r]estrictions on clothing, bedding, mail, 

visitation, reading and writing materials, or the use of hygienic facilities, except for 

abuse of these.” Id. But a liberty interest arising from state laws is generally limited to 

freedom from restraint that imposes “atypical and significant hardship” on the inmate, 

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 222–23 (2005); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483–84 

(1995), and courts have held that a loss of visitation privileges—including contact 

visits—is not an atypical and significant hardship. Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 605, 

607–08, 613 (7th Cir. 2005) (no liberty interest deprived by denial of contact visits plus 

loss of other privileges); Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1202–03 (9th Cir. 2010); Phillips v. 

Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003); Gerber v. Hickman, 291 F.3d 617, 621 (9th Cir. 

2002); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 580 n.26 (10th Cir. 1980). 

Woody also maintains that the denial of contact visits ordered by Zatecky, a 

member of Indiana’s executive branch, violated the principle of separation of powers 

because it encroached on matters of prison administration that are entrusted to the state 

legislature. But the federal constitution does not require the separation of powers within 

state governments. Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 689 n.4 (1980); Pittman v. Chi. Bd. 

of Educ., 64 F.3d 1098, 1102 (7th Cir. 1995); Risser v. Thompson, 930 F.2d 549, 551–52 (7th 

Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED. 

 

1 Woody does not challenge the dismissal of his equal-protection claim on appeal. 

Case: 14-2316 Document: 24 Filed: 02/24/2015 Pages: 2