This last case is not a Section 1983 case by a prisoner at all. Rather, it is a case brought by guards challenging their firing on due process grounds, arguing that the use of force rules are unconstitutionally vague. The reason it is relevant is that the court discusses at length the IDOC rules regarding use of force.
The case was decided on summary judgment for defendants, so the 7th Circuit assumed all facts alleged by the guards were true. In short, a prisoner refused to put his hands through the chuckhole so that the guards could remove his cuffs. The guards did not report this to a supervisor or alert the tact team; rather, they gathered other guards with the plan to enter his cell and forcibly remove the cuffs. When they did so, the prisoner resisted, and force was used. He was ultimately pepper sprayed and dragged down the hall to the shower area, where he was eventually seen by medical staff. IDOC fired the guards for failing to follow the use of force rules, which require that force only be used as a last resort (20 Ill. Admin. Code §501.30(a)), and for falsifying their incident report, which said that he was “escorted” to the shower, rather than “dragged” to the shower. The guards filed in federal court, alleging that the requirement that force be used only as a last resort was unconstitutionally vague, as applied to them.
The 7th Circuit rejected their argument. Citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972), the court stated that to survive a due process challenge, rules only need to “give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what the rules prohibit.” The court also noted that as applied to public employees, employers are given even more latitude. Hicks v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 109 F.4th 895, 904 (7th Cir. 2024).
However, the court held that even under these relaxed standards, the use of force rule was completely clear. “It very clearly means “try all other reasonable methods first. ”Any reasonable officer would have to have known that there were at least a handful of options that could be attempted before resorting to force.”
As noted, this case is not directly relevant, as it is well established that a violation of IDOC rules is not the same as a violation of the constitution; however, violations of the rules can be evidence of deliberate indifference and/or the intent required for use of force claims.
Also of note is that this is yet another judicial example of prison employees falsifying reports to cover up misconduct.
