Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Illinois Prisoner’s Segregation Lawsuit
by Michael Thompson
Norberto Torres spent three months confined in administrative segregation under harsh, filthy conditions because officials in his Illinois prison believed him to be engaged in gang activity. He sued, arguing that officials failed to provide him constitutional safeguards. In a ruling on October 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed and affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment for the defendants.
Torres was incarcerated at the Mernard Correctional Center of the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) in 2017 when he was given a disciplinary ticket. Within the ticket, officials alleged that a prisoner was found with a “Latin Folk Union questionnaire” containing his information. The questionnaire essentially asked members of the Latin Folk umbrella of gangs to identify themselves, their affiliation, and their crimes, as well as other information. Filling out the questionnaire is a prohibited gang activity, which led to the ticket. Torres, however, argued he is a member of another gang and did not fill out the questionnaire.
At his hearing, the disciplinary ticket was dismissed, but another ticket was issued less than two hours later and was essentially identical. The new ticket did contain a new allegation that the handwriting on the questionnaire was compared to a sample of his handwriting and the two matched. There were no witnesses called at his hearing, though he claims he requested them, and he was not shown any paperwork upon which the staff relied.
Torres argued in his subsequent grievance that the DOC failed to follow its own procedures by depriving him of an investigator to examine the charge and have witnesses, as well as depriving him the opportunity to be heard, to prepare for the hearing, and to see the samples and questionnaire. The grievance officer agreed and his ticket was subsequently expunged, but by then he had served three months in administrative segregation. In his 2019 complaint, Torres described the horrible conditions of his confinement, which included a “leaking, smelly toilet” and mold while it excluded time outside the cell more than once or twice a week and phone privileges.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision for a summary judgment. Unlike the district court, the Court assumed without deciding that Torres had suffered an atypical and significant hardship. Such hardship raises a liberty interest requiring due process protections. However, the Court had previously determined in Adams v. Reagle, 91 F.4th 880, that cases such as Torres’s were only entitled to an informal, non-adversarial process. Because Torres did not lose good time, which would have lengthened his sentence, it left “substantial discretion and flexibility in the hands of prison administrators.”
Judge Ilana Rovner’s forceful dissent argued that the Court applied the wrong standard. While the majority had applied Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005), it was Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) that was pertinent because it applied to a prisoner being assigned to segregation as a punishment for misconduct. A finding of guilty would result in the accused having “a liberty interest in not being arbitrarily punished for an offense he did not commit.”
In her dissent, Rovner wrote that “At a minimum, [the accused] is entitled to an explanation as to why his request for witnesses was refused.” Rovner highlighted that the Seventh Circuit’s own decisions have found atypically harsh conditions in administrative segregation can trigger Wolff requirements through a liberty interest. In fact, pre-trial detainees assigned to administrative segregation as punishment, and for whom good time credits do not apply, are subject to the due process granted by Wolff. This, she noted, has been concluded by every circuit to address the question.
Source: Torres v. Brookman, 155 F.4th 952 (7th Cir. 2025)
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Torres v. Brookman
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 155 F.4th 952 (7th Cir. 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |