Roger Sims v. Jason Jester

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 28, 2024*
Decided August 28, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1779
ROGER SIMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JASON JESTER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 20-CV-1055
Sue E. Myerscough,
Judge.
O R D E R
Illinois prisoner Roger Sims, who goes by the last name “Sims-Bey,” alleged that
prison officials violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when they placed him in segregation and prevented him from
attending religious meetings based on allegations that he held a leadership position in
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 23-1779 Page 2
religious activities. The district court entered summary judgment for the officials, and
because Sims-Bey fails to identify a genuine dispute of material fact, we affirm.
We recount the summary-judgment record in the light most favorable to
Sims-Bey. See Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 350 (7th Cir. 2017). In October 2018, Sims-Bey,
who belongs to the Moorish Science Temple of America, was incarcerated at the Illinois
River Correctional Center, where he participated in the Moorish Science Temple
religious group. On October 17, Sims-Bey’s cell was selected for an apparently random
search. Correctional officers confiscated materials including his Koran,1 religious
pamphlets, and documents related to his religious group meetings. Eventually, the
materials were returned, except for six pages. One contained handwritten tallies for
elected positions including Grand Sheik of the prison’s Moorish Science Temple group.
Prison officials opened an investigation to determine whether Sims-Bey had been
elected as Grand Sheik in violation of Rule 425 of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“Department”), which prohibits prisoners from holding leadership positions in
religious activities. 20 ILL. A DMIN . C ODE § 425.60(e) (1995). Sims-Bey met with Jason
Jester, the correctional officer who led the investigation. Jester’s report states that
Sims-Bey admitted his role as Grand Sheik and acknowledged that the handwritten
tallies represented votes from the Moorish Science Temple group’s 2018 elections.
Sims-Bey denies making those statements. After the investigation, prison officials
sought guidance from the Department’s Religious Practice Advisory Board, which
reviewed Jester’s report and recommended that prison officials discipline Sims-Bey.
See id. § 425.40(b)(1); Ill. Dep’t of Corr., Admin. Directive 04.25.101(G) (2018).
Accordingly, on October 30, Jester wrote a disciplinary ticket against Sims-Bey
for violating Department Rule 425, as well as four Department rules prohibiting
leadership activity, unauthorized organizational activity, abuse of privileges, and
violations of facility rules. See 20 I LL. A DMIN . C ODE § 504.APP. A (111), (205), (310), (404).
Because the charged offenses were “major infractions,” a hearing before the Adjustment
Committee was scheduled. See id. §§ 504.60, 504.80.
On November 12, Sims-Bey appeared before the Adjustment Committee, made
up of two correctional officers who were not involved in the investigation. He
1 The Moorish Science Temple’s Holy Koran is distinct from the Quran of Islam.
The two texts bear little resemblance to one another. See BRITANNICA, Moorish Science
Temple of America, https://www.brittanica.com/topic/Moorish-Science-Temple-of-
America (last updated July 19, 2024).

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 23-1779 Page 3
presented one live witness and his own written statement in his defense. The
Adjustment Committee found Sims-Bey guilty of the charged violations, and as a result,
imposed three months of disciplinary segregation, among other penalties.
On November 16, Sims-Bey tried to attend a Moorish Science Temple meeting
but was intercepted and brought to a segregation unit to serve his penalty. He remained
there through February 12, 2019. During that time, he could not attend his religious
group meetings, but he had a Koran and could speak to the prison’s chaplain. He could
also pray and maintain his no-pork diet.
After Sims-Bey appealed, the Department’s Administrative Review Board
(“Board”) ordered a rehearing—at Lawrence Correctional Center, where Sims-Bey had
been transferred—so that an incorrect date could be changed on the disciplinary ticket
and the Adjustment Committee could further explain its decision (including the role of
confidential sources) in its hearing summary. Because of a court writ, Sims-Bey could
not attend the rehearing at Lawrence. The Adjustment Committee again found him
guilty. But on appeal, the Board concluded that the explanation of Sims-Bey’s conduct
in the disciplinary ticket and rehearing report failed to substantiate the charges. Thus,
the disciplinary ticket and guilty findings were expunged from Sims-Bey’s record.
See 20 I LL. A DMIN . C ODE § 504.80(q)(1)(C).
Sims-Bey filed this lawsuit against sixteen guards and administrators at the
Illinois River and Lawrence facilities and two members of the Department’s Religious
Practice Advisory Board. The district court screened his complaint and determined that
Sims-Bey could proceed on First and Fourteenth Amendment claims that the
defendants interfered with his practice of religion, retaliated against him because of his
religion, and violated his due process rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The parties eventually filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district
court granted the defendants’ motion and denied Sims-Bey’s motion. The court first
determined that Sims-Bey’s First Amendment free exercise claim failed because the
facts showed that officials had an adequate basis to suspect that Sims-Bey held a
position of authority, and so penalties were justified by legitimate security concerns.
The court further explained that even if Sims-Bey was merely the “acting” Grand Sheik
with no actual authority over other inmates, his title alone gave the “implication and
appearance” of authority. The court also determined that Sims-Bey’s First Amendment
retaliation claim could not succeed because the defendants had evidence that they
placed him in segregation out of concerns for institutional security, whereas Sims-Bey
only speculated that the defendants acted out of religious animus. Finally, the court

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 23-1779 Page 4
concluded that Sims-Bey’s procedural due process claim failed because he was
provided all necessary avenues to challenge his disciplinary conviction, and regardless,
placement in segregation for three months did not implicate a protected liberty interest.
Sims-Bey now appeals, and we review the summary judgment ruling de novo.
See Henry v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769, 776 (7th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Sims-Bey first argues that
the district court improperly discredited his affidavit opposing the defendants’ motion.
Specifically, he asserts that the court failed to credit his statements that he held only an
“acting” position and that the group did not hold formal elections in 2018.
Sims-Bey is mistaken; there is no indication that the district court discredited his
affidavit. The court explained that it relied on the material facts “as stated by [Sims-Bey]
in his affidavit and as established by other evidence of record.” The district court noted
that his affidavit stated he “[did] not have a position of unauthorized authority or
power over anyone” and did not “ha[ve] any unauthorized elections in … September
2018.” The court then concluded that, even taking these statements as true, at most they
established that Sims-Bey did not violate Department rules—not that the defendants
violated his constitutional rights in the course of the disciplinary proceedings.
Sims-Bey does not take specific issue with the district court’s assessment of the
merits of his claims (emphasizing instead that his affidavit created a factual dispute),
but he generally asserts that he was placed in segregation without due process and that,
while there, he could not freely exercise his religion. We can address the merits of these
arguments. Accepting Sims-Bey’s attestations at face value, however, he did not raise a
genuine issue of material fact with respect to his free-exercise and due-process claims.
First, the record shows that Sims-Bey was not substantially burdened in his
ability to practice religion. For this claim to survive summary judgment, Sims-Bey
needed evidence from which “a jury could reasonably find that the defendants
personally and unjustifiably placed a substantial burden on his religious practices.”
Thompson v. Holm, 809 F.3d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). A substantial
burden puts “pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,”
Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981), and is unjustified if it is “not reasonably
related to a legitimate penological interest,” Thompson, 809 F.3d at 380 (citing Turner v.
Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Here, Sims-Bey was not pressured to alter his religious
practice or violate his beliefs: He was placed in segregation but still had his Koran,
spoke to the chaplain, and maintained his diet and prayer schedule. And the prison’s
decision to forbid his attendance at Moorish Science Temple meetings did not infringe
on his right to freely practice because the defendants showed a legitimate penological

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 23-1779 Page 5
interest—security and safety concerns related to his influence as “acting” Grand
Sheik—for the limits on his congregative activities.
Second, Sims-Bey believes that the Board’s ultimate conclusion that the updated
disciplinary ticket and rehearing report failed to substantiate the charges shows that he
was deprived of due process. In some cases, a successful appeal alone demonstrates that
a prisoner received due process—but not, as in this case, when the appeal does not
correct the procedural defects before the punishment is carried out. Morissette v. Peters,
45 F.3d 1119, 1121–22, n.4 (7th Cir. 1995). Still, the fact that the guilty findings were later
expunged does not mean that the rehearing failed to satisfy minimal procedural
requirements. See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). Before a
prisoner can be deprived of a protected liberty interest, due process requires that he
receive notice of the claimed violation, an opportunity to be heard by calling witnesses
and presenting evidence, and a written statement from the decisionmaker explaining
the evidence relied on in imposing discipline. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563, 566
(1974). Sims-Bey does not dispute that he received notice and a written statement from
the rehearing (which was not substantive), and he had the opportunity to be heard
when he presented his statement and testimony at his first hearing. Further, he has not
argued that there was not at least “some evidence” supporting the violation.
See Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).
In any event, as the district court concluded, Sims-Bey did not meet the threshold
requirement of establishing that his placement in segregation deprived him of a
protected liberty interest. This would require evidence that his disciplinary segregation
imposed an atypical and significant hardship that departed from ordinary incidents of
prison life, considering both the conditions and duration of segregation. See Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Marion v. Columbia Corr. Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir.
2009). But there is no evidence about the conditions in segregation, and we have held
that three months in a segregation cell, without more, is not an atypical and significant
hardship. See Lisle v. Welborn, 933 F.3d 705, 721 (7th Cir. 2019); Marion, 559 F.3d at 698.
Finally, Sims-Bey does not mention in his brief his claim that prison officials
retaliated against him for his religious beliefs. Although we have construed his brief
liberally, Sims-Bey’s failure to develop any argument about this claim is a waiver.
See Hackett v. City of South Bend, 956 F.3d 504, 510 (7th Cir. 2020).
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --