Cannon v. Mote

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-04-0222 Rel

Case Date: 03/08/2005

NO. 4-04-0222

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM CANNON, JR.,
                       Plaintiff-Appellant,
                       v.
STEPHEN MOTE, ROGER WALKER, JR., and
CLETUS SHAW,
                       Defendants-Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appeal from
Circuit Court of
Livingston County
No. 03MR115

Honorable
Harold J. Frobish,
Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, William Cannon, Jr., a prisoner in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a mandamus complaint against defendants, certain DOC employees, alleging his right to religious freedom was violated when he was disciplined for refusing, on religious grounds, to take a certain tuberculosis (TB) test. Defendants' motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2002)) was granted. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was ordered by DOC staff to take an annual skin test for TB (PPD test). When plaintiff refused, a discipline report was filed against him for disobeying a direct order. Plaintiff argued at his disciplinary hearing that he objected to the PPD test for religious reasons and offered to take an X-ray examination or sputum test instead. The adjustment committee found him guilty of disobeying a direct order and imposed three months of C-grade status, three months of segregation, and three months' loss of commissary and audio/visual privileges. Plaintiff appealed to the administrative review board (ARB), arguing a requirement that he take the PPD test violated his right to exercise his religion under the first and fourteenth amendments and the Illinois Constitution. The ARB denied his grievance, and the DOC Director concurred in the ARB decision. Plaintiff then filed a mandamus complaint in the circuit court, requesting that his disciplinary report be expunged.

In his mandamus complaint, plaintiff argued, among numerous other things, that section 7 of the Tuberculosis Sanitarium District Act (Act) (70 ILCS 920/7 (West 2002)) allowed him to refuse a TB examination if he objected to such examination on religious grounds and that plaintiff's rights under the first amendment and fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. I, XIV) and plaintiff's rights under article I, sections 2 and 3, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,