In July 1987, an inmate in the Indiana State Prison filed suit, pro se, in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against prison officials. The complaint alleged violations of the inmate's Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in regards to a disciplinary hearing about ...
read more >
In July 1987, an inmate in the Indiana State Prison filed suit, pro se, in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against prison officials. The complaint alleged violations of the inmate's Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in regards to a disciplinary hearing about the inmate's attempted escape. In December 1987, the District Court (Judge Allen Sharp) dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but permitted plaintiff to amend the due process claims.
Plaintiff's amended complaint alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process in three respects. Plaintiff alleged that the disciplinary board did not follow statutory procedures when conducting the hearing. Plaintiff also alleged that prison officials conspired to deny him of his due process rights. Finally, plaintiff alleged officials violated his rights by denying him visitation, recreation, mail, and access to the courts. Plaintiff later filed a supplemental complaint in which he claimed that his rights were violated by being classified as a ""Special Offender"" on the basis of his escape attempt. The District Court dismissed the supplemental complain for failure to state a claim and referred to its December 1987 order when dismissing the other allegations.
Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit (Judges Richard Poser, Michael Kanne, and Joel Flaim) in 1991 and the District Court decision was affirmed except for the claim of conspiracy to deny plaintiff a fair hearing. Moore v. Final Reviewing Auth., 1991 WL 37787 (7th Cir.(Ind.)). This claim was remanded to the District Court and the parties reached a settlement. The terms of the 1992 settlement stipulated that plaintiff's earlier guilty verdict by the disciplinary board would not affect his future classification and would be kept in a classified portion of his file.
In 1997, plaintiff learned that his offense had not been kept confidential and asked officials directly to correct the situation. When they refused, plaintiff moved, still acting pro se, but with assistance from the Valparaiso University Law Clinic, for defendants to be held in contempt and asked for monetary damages. Prison officials then acted without order and moved plaintiff's earlier record into a confidential folder. The District Court (Judge Sharp) declined to find the prison officials in contempt and refused to award damages. On appeal to the Seventh Circuit (Judges William Bauer, Frank Easterbrook, and Kenneth Ripple), the District Court's decision was affirmed, but the order for plaintiff to pay costs was reversed. Moore v. Final Reviewing Auth., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 3702 (7th Cir, March 7, 2000).
Apparently, during the pendency of the appeal, defendants put the disputed material back in the plaintiff's file; on the Court of Appeals' suggestion, he renewed his contempt motion but it was denied. There the docket ends.John Maksymonko - 08/12/2005