Opinion ID: 629163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Due process received?

Text: 42 The question then is whether Black received the constitutionally mandated process due him before being deprived of his liberty interest. We find that plaintiff Black has raised a genuine issue of material fact in that regard. 43 Black is proceeding pro se, and accordingly we must construe his complaint liberally. Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179-80 (6th Cir.1985) (pro se complaints must be read liberally). Nevertheless, on summary judgment, the non-moving party has the burden of setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party has no obligation to file affidavits or other materials negating a claim on which his opponent bears the burden so long as the movant relies upon the absence of an essential element in the pleadings, depositions, or answers to interrogatories. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). 44 As they do in their brief, defendants claim in their responses to plaintiff's interrogatories that they provided Black with all the process required by CPP 10.2: 45 Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Plaintiff was afforded the process outlined in CPP 10.2, VI., A., 1., a. 46 Mr. Black was afforded the process outlined in CPP 10.2 Section VI., A., 1., a. Mr. Black was placed in Administrative Segregation due to his being received on hold ticket from another correctional facility. Due to his hold ticket status a Pre-Hearing detention form was prepared upon his arrival with a Pre-Hearing review conducted by the Adjustment Committee within the prescribed time limits as per policy and procedure CPP 10.2 All documents relative to his Pre-Hearing Detentions have been provided Mr. Black in previous responses to his claims. 47 Answer 11 and Response 11 to Plaintiff's Request for Supplementation of Discovery Responses Re: Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Attendant Request for Production of Documents. 48 This response, however, is not supported factually by any materials included in the record on appeal. The record's only evidence of a hearing is the partial transcript of the April 15, 1988, Adjustment Committee hearing. There is no other evidence in the record of what review Black received or whether he was given an opportunity to challenge his segregation. 4 49 The defendants' legal conclusion that Black received all the process due him is countered by Black's affidavit attached to his response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. In it, Black asserts that he was told by prison official Kevin Shake in his cell on October 7, 1986, the day after he arrived back at KSR, that he was in segregation because he was on hold from an out-of-state institution. Black claims, Beyond this proffered rationale, I was not afforded any due process protection. He goes on to say that he was not given any opportunity to challenge their purported justification for my segregation after he filed his grievance and defendants stated their reasons for the lock-down. He states that he was not afforded an opportunity to challenge the decision to resume my administrative segregation assignment under 'lock down'  after he returned to KSR in March of 1987. He does admit that there was an April 15, 1988, Adjustment Committee hearing concerning his segregation, but states that [b]eyond this hearing, I was not afforded any opportunity to challenge my segregation assignment. I was confined under 'lock down' for 100 days during this period, and for 281 days total. 50 The process described in Black's affidavit would not suffice under Hewitt. Thus, Black, through his affidavit, has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he received the process due him, and defendants have failed to counter Black's affidavit with anything but a legal conclusion that Black did receive all the process that was due. 5 51