Whitfield v. Spiller

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-prison clinical services supervisor’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for refusing to sign release form, when defendant directed that disciplinary ticket be issued to him. Record showed that on day plaintiff was scheduled to be released from prison and go on mandatory supervised release, defendant gave plaintiff instant electronic monitoring form that stated it was to be signed by only sex offenders, (where plaintiff was not sex offender), and that defendant directed that disciplinary ticket be issued against plaintiff, (which resulted in plaintiff being placed in segregation), after plaintiff refused defendant’s directive to sign said form on four occasions. Issuance of said ticket ultimately resulted in revocation of his supervised release and imposition of additional 18-month prison sentence. Illinois law, though, did not require plaintiff’s signature on said form, and defendant did not seek guidance from either supervisor or legal authority on applicability of form to plaintiff and refused to answer plaintiff’s question as to why he had to sign said form. Defendant could not prevail on her summary judgment motion, where record showed that: (1) defendant was sufficiently involved in issuance of disciplinary ticket and resulting placement of plaintiff into segregation that formed basis of adverse act; (2) plaintiff’s refusal to sign form was protected activity under First Amendment, where plaintiff was merely seeking explanation for why form applied to him; and (3) there is material dispute as to defendant’s motivation as to why disciplinary ticket was issued. (Dissent filed.)