Opinion ID: 580576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts Alleging Defendants' Involvement

Text: 5 A plaintiff in a § 1983 action must allege specific facts linking the defendants with the incident in issue. Rascon v. Hardiman, 803 F.2d 269, 273 (7th Cir.1986). The defendants argue that Phillips has not alleged that either Lane or Haws had any direct, personal involvement in the disciplinary action. This argument is correct only in part. Lane apparently had no direct involvement in the investigation or disciplinary proceeding. Although Lane was the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, the actions of employees within the Department of Corrections will not be imposed upon Lane for respondeat superior purposes. Id. To establish a § 1983 claim against a supervisory official, the plaintiff must show that the official knowingly, willfully, or at least recklessly caused the constitutional violations. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662 (1986); Rascon, 803 F.2d at 274. The only evidence that Lane was even aware of the incident was his stamped signature on the Menard committee's recommendation that the Centralia committee submit a more specific report. This signature does not establish that Lane had any involvement with Phillips' Centralia disciplinary hearing, nor does it establish that Lane even knew about the hearing. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Lane was proper. 6 Defendant Haws, however, signed the Centralia Adjustment Committee Summary after it was revised in response to the Menard committee's recommendations. Thus, some evidence exists directly linking Haws with the complained-of behavior.