Case: Carlisle v. Bensinger

1:72-cv-03099 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Dec. 6, 1972

Closed Date: Feb. 22, 1973

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case brought pro se by people held in the segregation unit of the Joliet Branch of the Illinois State Penitentiary in Joliet, IL. The plaintiffs filed their case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case was assigned to District Judge William Bauer. The Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections was the defendant. The plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing numerous violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. As for the Fifth …

The plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing numerous violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. As for the Fifth Amendment, the plaintiffs alleged they were denied due process when put in segregation. Under the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiffs argued the conditions in segregation were cruel and unusual punishment and that they were assaulted. The plaintiffs also filed state law claims, alleging there was air and noise pollution and improper plumbing. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and class action certification.

The defendants moved to deny the class action certification and for dismissal. On February 22, 1973, the court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action on which relief could be granted. 355 F.Supp. 1359. First, the court rejected the Eighth Amendment claims because solitary confinement was not per se cruel and unusual punishment and there was insufficient evidence of assaults. Also, a previous case Armstrong v. Bensinger, held that the conditions in the unit at issue were not cruel and unusual. Second, the court found no due process violation because although prison rules require hearings within 72 hours after a disciplinary ticket, the Constitution did not impose the same requirement. Finally, the court rejected the state law claims because the plaintiffs’ cause of action was 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

There is no indication that the plaintiffs appealed this decision. The case appears to be closed.

show full summary

Summary Authors

Sarah Marble (2/25/2022)