On February 7, 1997, the Plaintiff, an inmate at Madison Correctional Institution (“MaCI”), filed this suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging that his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights had been violated by three administrators at MaCI. On February 13, 1996, he ...
read more >
On February 7, 1997, the Plaintiff, an inmate at Madison Correctional Institution (“MaCI”), filed this suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging that his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights had been violated by three administrators at MaCI. On February 13, 1996, he had been given a conduct report stating that he had tested positive for marijuana. The Plaintiff alleged that, although he claimed that he did not provide the urine specimen - another inmate provided it – he was not permitted to call that inmate or the Substance Abuse Coordinator at MaCI, to testify before the Rules Infraction Board ("RIB"). The RIB concluded, without allowing the other inmate to testify, that he would not be a credible witness. The Plaintiff proceeded to his hearing without either witness's testimony and was found guilty. The Plaintiff sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Plaintiff initially filed the case pro se, but the District Court later assigned legal counsel for the Plaintiff.
On May 19, 1997, Plaintiff moved for Summary Judgment. On August 26, 1997, the District Court (Judge George C. Smith) adopted Magistrate Judge King's Report and Recommendation denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 15, 1997, the Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Plaintiff's due process rights were not violated. On September 30, 1998, the District Court denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendants filed their Second Motion for Summary Judgment on June 8, 2000, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity as the Plaintiff's right to call witnesses was not clearly established. On September 11, 2000, the District Court denied the Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment.
On November 6, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Rule as a Matter of Law that Defendant Wingard's Policy Violated the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Rights. In that Motion, the Plaintiff requested that the court issue an injunction against Defendant Wingard in his official capacity, forbidding him from continuing the unconstitutional policy of denying witnesses at RIB hearings based on a predetermination of the witnesses' credibility. The District Court (Judge Algenon Marbley), on November 29, 2000, denied Plaintiff's Motion. Williams v. Wilkinson, 122 F.Supp.2d 894 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
On December 7, 2000, the jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, and against Defendants Wingard and Sharpe, in the amount of $2,107.22. On December 15, 2000, the Plaintiff filed his Renewed Motion for Injunctive Relief. On February 20, 2001 the District Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief. Williams v. Wilkinson, 132 F.Supp.2d 601 (S.D. Ohio 2001). Defendants appealed both the jury verdict and the District Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief. And on December 10, 2002 the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the jury verdict and the District Court’s injunctive relief, and remanding the case to the District Court. On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition for certiorari. And on March 29, 2004, the District Court ordered that the jury award previously entered in the case be vacated, and the case was subsequently dismissed.Caitlin Howitt - 11/13/2011