In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 06-2103

RONNIE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRIAN EVINGER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 04 C 2278—Harold A. Baker, Judge.

____________

SUBMITTED JANUARY 18, 2008—DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2008

____________

Before POSNER, FLAUM, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff, an Illinois state

prisoner, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

several correctional officials, claiming that they retaliated against him because he tried to obtain evidence to

defend himself against a disciplinary charge. The district

court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the

complaint for failure to state a claim.

The complaint alleges the following: Defendant Evinger

confiscated a “hot pot” that he found in Johnson’s cell,

and charged him with possession of unauthorized prop-
2 No. 06-2103

erty. (The term “hot pot” has various meanings, but in the

present setting appears to refer to a vessel for heating

food or liquids, perhaps a three-dimensional version of a

hot plate.) The day after the charge was lodged, the

plaintiff submitted a questionnaire to Evinger for the

“expressed purpose” of obtaining information that the

plaintiff needed in order to defend himself against the

charge. Evinger became “infuriated,” placed Johnson

in segregation, refused to respond to the questionnaire,

confiscated it, and filed a second disciplinary charge

against Johnson, alleging intimidation, possession of

dangerous written materials, insolence, and possession of

unauthorized property. The disciplinary committee

adjudged Johnson guilty of intimidation and insolence

and by way of punishment ordered that he be placed in

segregation for 15 days and that certain privileges be

denied him. Johnson appealed to the prison’s Administrative Review Board, which reversed and ordered the

disciplinary conviction expunged, though by this time

he had served some or all of the time in segregation that

the first-line disciplinary committee had ordered.

The district court understood the plaintiff to be claiming

that Evinger had retaliated against him for exercising

his First Amendment right to complain about prison

conditions, and pointed out that the questionnaire

was not a complaint but rather a quest for information

for use in the plaintiff’s “hot pot” disciplinary proceeding. We understand the plaintiff’s claim differently, as a

claim that he was retaliated against for attempting to

gather evidence that he needed in order to be able to

defend himself against the disciplinary charge. Due process

has been interpreted to give a prisoner a limited right

to present evidence at a disciplinary hearing. Wolff v.
No. 06-2103 3

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974); Lagerstrom v. Kingston,

463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2004); Grossman v. Bruce, 447 F.3d

801, 805 (10th Cir. 2006); Sims v. Artuz, 230 F.3d 14, 24 (2d

Cir. 2000). The Illinois prison system provides, however,

a procedure, the adequacy of which the plaintiff does not

challenge, for obtaining evidence: “Prior to the hearing,

the offender may request that witnesses be interviewed.

The request shall be in writing on the space provided in

the disciplinary report and shall include an explanation

of what the witnesses would state. If the offender fails

to make the request in a timely manner before the hearing, the individual may be granted a continuance for

good cause shown.” Ill. Admin. Code, tit. 20, § 504.80(f)(2).

“The offender does not have the right to confront or crossexamine any witnesses but may submit questions for

witnesses to the [disciplinary] Committee prior to the

hearing. These questions shall be asked by the Committee or its Hearing Investigator unless found to be

cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility.” Id., § 504.80(g)(2). This

procedure was explained to Johnson on the disciplinary

report that he signed and attached to his complaint, and

as we said he does not contend that the procedure is

constitutionally (or otherwise) inadequate. By failing

to comply with the authorized procedure, he forfeited

his claim to have been retaliated against for attempting

to present evidence to the disciplinary committee. The

conduct for which he was punished was not protected

by the due process clause.

AFFIRMED.
4 No. 06-2103

A true Copy:

Teste:

 _____________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—2-6-08