Charles Cecil Shepard II, a prisoner currently housed at Branchville Correctional Facility, filed suit against four jail officials over a disciplinary hearing that occurred in late August 2025. Shepard alleged that an incident on August 18, 2025, led to disciplinary charges, but officials failed to serve him the incident report until August 27 and held the hearing on August 28—more than seven days after the initial incident. The hearing resulted in 30 days of segregation and restrictions on phone, visitation, and commissary privileges.
Judge Barker found that Shepard's complaint failed to state a valid constitutional claim, explaining that his allegations did not implicate federal due process protections. 'The Fifth Amendment is not implicated by Mr. Shepard's allegations, because the defendants are state actors, not federal actors,' Barker wrote, dismissing any Fifth Amendment claims. As for the Fourteenth Amendment, the judge noted that 'only statutes or rules attaching consequences to particular circumstances give prisoners liberty or property interests.'
The court delivered its strongest language when addressing Shepard's core argument about the timing of his disciplinary hearing. 'To the extent that Mr. Shepard believes that the disciplinary charges against him were unfounded, prisoners do not have a constitutional right to avoid false disciplinary charges,' Judge Barker wrote, citing Seventh Circuit precedent that 'due process rights are not violated if a false conduct report is filed.'
Shepard's case has a complex procedural history—this was his second amended complaint after Judge Barker initially dismissed his original filing and required him to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The judge noted that Shepard filed two separate amended complaints relating to different incidents, with the court opening a separate case for the second amended complaint. Under federal law, the court must screen complaints filed by prisoners before allowing service on defendants.
Judge Barker rejected Shepard's arguments about procedural violations, finding that his disciplinary hearing was 'properly addressed during the disciplinary proceedings where the due process mandates of Wolff v. McDonnell control.' The court explained that even assuming misconduct by prison officials, 'the protection from such arbitrary action is found in the procedures mandated by due process.' Additionally, the judge noted that Shepard cannot seek monetary damages related to his disciplinary proceedings unless his sanctions are first reversed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey.
The ruling aligns with established Seventh Circuit precedent limiting prisoners' ability to challenge disciplinary proceedings through federal civil rights lawsuits. Courts have consistently held that prisoners must exhaust internal grievance procedures and, in cases involving loss of good time credits, pursue habeas corpus relief rather than damages under Section 1983. Shepard did not allege any loss of credit time or demotion in credit class that would support a habeas petition.
Rather than immediately entering judgment, Judge Barker gave Shepard until May 5, 2026, to show cause why his case should not be dismissed. The judge cited Seventh Circuit guidance requiring courts to provide prisoners 'at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show cause' before dismissing cases involving indigent plaintiffs. If Shepard fails to respond by the deadline, the action will be dismissed 'without further warning or opportunity to show cause.'