Seventy-Five Days in Segregation

Wolff v. McDonnell requires written notice at least 24 hours before the hearing, a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the action, an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence when consistent with institutional safety, and, in some cases, assistance for illiterate or mentally ill inmates. The notice here was two hours, not 24, and Dwayne is mentally ill, so assistance may be required. The confidential informant's statement raises a due-process concern: the hearing officer must independently assess reliability and cannot rely solely on an undisclosed accusation. The written decision must identify the evidence and reasons; a conclusory reference is insufficient.

Dwayne's 75 days already served in segregation also requires periodic review, because long-term segregation can create a liberty interest under Sandin if the conditions impose atypical and significant hardship. The defective notice, lack of assistance, and reliance on undisclosed hearsay are the strongest grounds for reversal. The warden should not continue segregation without a new hearing that cures these defects and documents the need for segregation rather than protective housing.

The objective component asks whether the deprivation is sufficiently serious: 75 days in a windowless 80-square-foot cell with one hour of recreation three days a week and no programming, combined with a psychiatrist's warning of serious psychological harm, is enough to allege a serious risk of harm. The subjective component asks whether prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk. The psychiatrist's written warning gave actual knowledge; continuing segregation despite that warning supports deliberate indifference. The officials need not have intended harm, but they must respond reasonably.

A bare claim that segregation is 'punitive' is not enough; the claim is that officials ignored a known medical risk. The fact that Dwayne threw urine is a security concern, but it does not justify ignoring mental deterioration. The court would look at whether officials monitored him, referred him for treatment, or considered alternative housing. The record supports a claim if the warden continues segregation after the warning without a new psychiatric review. Qualified immunity may be available depending on clearly established law, but the Eighth Amendment claim is substantial.

Move Dwayne to a mental-health step-down unit or protective custody with daily psychiatric review, not continued disciplinary segregation. Restore out-of-cell time to at least four hours per day, including yard and programming, and provide group therapy and medication management. If separation from the general population is necessary, use a single cell with a window in a specialized unit, not the segregation wing. Assign a mental-health clinician to see him daily for the first week and develop a safety plan. The 90-day segregation sentence can be suspended pending good behavior, with credit for the 75 days served. If he poses an assault risk, use a behavior-management plan and staff training rather than isolation. Conduct a new disciplinary hearing with 24-hour notice, disclosed evidence sufficient to protect the informant, and an assistant. Document the reasons for any continued restrictions and review them every seven days. This plan satisfies institutional safety while avoiding the known psychological harm and the due-process defects.