Ford v. Walker

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2007 » Ford v. Walker

Ford v. Walker

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-06-1060 NRel

Case Date: 11/05/2007

Preview:NO. 4-06-1060 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT BOBBY FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROGER E. WALKER, JR.; Administrative Review Board Person SHERRY BENTON; Illinois Prisoner Review Board Chairman NORMAN SUNA; Formal Head Warden GUY D. PIERCE; Formal Head Warden Designee Unknown "PP"; Adjustment Committee Chairperson DAVID A. LINGLE; and Cochairperson ANABELLE MOTTELER, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Filed:

11-5-07

Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 06MR305

Honorable Patrick W. Kelley, Judge Presiding.

_________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Bobby Ford, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a complaint against defendants, Roger E. Walker, Jr. (DOC's Director); Administrative Review Board (Administrative Board) person Sherry Benton; Illinois Prisoner Review Board (Prisoner Review Board) Chairman Norman Suna; Formal Head Warden Designee Unknown "PP"; Adjustment Committee Chairperson David A. Lingle; and Cochairperson Anabelle Motteler, alleging his due-process rights were violated during four prison disciplinary proceedings. On November 21, 2006, the Plaintiff

trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss.

appeals, arguing the court erred by dismissing his complaint. On June 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a pro se "petition for

mandamus under 42 U.S.C. [section] 1983," alleging his dueprocess rights were violated during four prison disciplinary proceedings that resulted in revocation of good-conduct credits. He asserted due-process violations occurred at the adjustmentcommittee level of proceedings, including (1) insufficient evidence of his guilt to some of the charged offenses, (2) denial of his right to call witnesses, (3) denial of the opportunity to appear at one of his disciplinary hearings, (4) the failure of prison officials to timely conduct one of his disciplinary hearings, and (5) the failure of prison officials to conduct one of the disciplinary hearings at the same prison where the corresponding disciplinary report was issued. Plaintiff also alleged

defendants failed to correct the due-process violations on review, and DOC's Director, the Prisoner Review Board, and the Administrative Board failed to provide "factual information" for their decisions. Plaintiff requested the trial court hold the manner in which his good-conduct credits were revoked to be unconstitutional; compel restoration of his good-conduct credits and expungement of disciplinary reports; order defendants to provide him with a factual basis for decisions relating to the denial of his grievances, revocation of his good-conduct credits, and his prolonged placement in punitive segregation; and order defendants to adhere to and abide by the rules and laws governing revocation - 2 -

of good-conduct credits.

Additionally, plaintiff asserted he was

entitled to $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from each defendant and litigation expenses. Documents attached to plaintiff's complaint showed he received four disciplinary reports while imprisoned. On Septem-

ber 28, 2005, he received the first disciplinary report at issue. In connection with that report, the adjustment committee found plaintiff guilty of insolence and disobeying a direct order. It

recommended revocation of three months of good-conduct credits. Plaintiff filed a grievance, which was denied upon review by the Administrative Board. The record does not contain the disciplin-

ary report, the adjustment-committee report, or plaintiff's grievance; the above information is gleaned from the Administrative Board's report. On October 7, 2005, plaintiff received the second disciplinary report, citing him with disobeying a direct order, intimidation or threats, and insolence. An adjustment-committee

hearing was conducted, during which two of plaintiff's three witnesses were called. The adjustment-committee report states

the third witness was "not contacted due to being [the] reporting employee." The adjustment committee found plaintiff guilty of

disobeying a direct order and insolence and recommended revocation of one month of plaintiff's good-conduct credits. Plaintiff

filed a grievance but the Administrative Board denied it. - 3 -

On October 28, 2005, plaintiff was issued a third disciplinary report, citing him with assault. The adjustment

committee report shows a hearing was conducted and three of plaintiff's four witnesses were called. The fourth witness was

not called because his testimony was deemed to be cumulative. Following the hearing, the adjustment committee found plaintiff guilty of assault and recommended revocation of six months of his good-conduct credits. Plaintiff filed a grievance, which the On January 17, 2006, the Prisoner

Administrative Board denied .

Review Board adjusted the loss of good-conduct credits to three months. On January 16, 2006, plaintiff received the fourth disciplinary report at issue, citing him with assault, fighting, and threats or intimidation. The adjustment-committee report

shows a hearing was conducted, but plaintiff requested no witnesses and refused to appear. The adjustment committee found

plaintiff guilty of all three cited offenses and recommended revocation of one year's good-conduct credits. The record shows

plaintiff filed a grievance but does not contain a final decision by the Administrative Board. Defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's petition pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2004)), alleging he failed to state a cause of action for mandamus relief. - 4 On November 21, 2006, the

trial court granted defendants' motions. This appeal followed. Initially, defendants contend plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in connection with his first, second, and fourth disciplinary reports. Specifically, they note

plaintiff failed to attach the following documents to his complaint: (1) an adjustment-committee report for his first disciplinary hearing, (2) grievances he filed in connection with his first, second, and fourth disciplinary reports, and (3) the Administrative Board's decision in connection with his fourth disciplinary report. A party aggrieved by an administrative decision cannot seek judicial review unless he has first pursued all available administrative remedies. Johnson v. Department of Corrections, The

368 Ill. App. 3d 147, 150, 857 N.E.2d 282, 285 (2006).

doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to grievances filed by inmates. 857 N.E.2d at 285. Contrary to defendants' contentions, the documents plaintiff attached to his complaint were sufficient to show he exhausted administrative remedies in connection with his first three disciplinary reports. However, with respect to his fourth Johnson, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 150,

disciplinary report, plaintiff failed to show his grievance had administrative finality and, therefore, did not meet his burden - 5 -

of showing the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

See Reyes

v. Walker, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1122, 1125-26, 833 N.E.2d 379, 382 (2005). Although plaintiff attached the Administrative Board's

final decision to his appellate brief (showing reduction of the amount of his good-conduct credits to zero), documents appended to briefs that were not included in the record on appeal will be ignored. In re Parentage of Melton, 321 Ill. App. 3d 823, 826, Thus, our review is limited to

748 N.E.2d 291, 294 (2001).

proceedings in connection with only the first three disciplinary reports. On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred by granting defendants' motions to dismiss. A section 2-615 motion Gilchrist v.

challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint.

Snyder, 351 Ill. App. 3d 639, 642, 814 N.E.2d 147, 150 (2004). Pursuant to that section, "[d]ismissal is appropriate only where, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is clear that no set of facts can be proved under the pleadings that will entitle the plaintiff to relief." Gilchrist, 351 Ill. App. 3d at 642, 814 N.E.2d at 150. A trial

court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-615 is subject to de novo review. 814 N.E.2d at 150. "An allegation of a due-process-rights violation *** states a cause of action in mandamus." - 6 Dye v. Pierce, 369 Ill. Gilchrist, 351 Ill. App. 3d at 642,

App. 3d 683, 687, 868 N.E.2d 293, 296 (2006).

Mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy that may be used to compel a public officer to perform his official duties that do not involve an exercise of discretion. Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 186 Ill. 2d 198, 229, 710 "A writ of mandamus will not be granted

N.E.2d 798, 813 (1999).

unless the plaintiff can show a clear, affirmative right to relief, a clear duty of the defendant to act, and clear authority in the defendant to comply with the writ." at 229, 710 N.E.2d at 813. Spagnolo, 186 Ill. 2d

Such relief "'is not appropriate to

regulate a course of official conduct or to enforce the performance of official duties generally.'" Cannon v. Quinley, 351

Ill. App. 3d 1120, 1127, 815 N.E.2d 443, 449 (2004), quoting Hatch v. Szymanski, 325 Ill. App. 3d 736, 739, 759 N.E.2d 585, 588 (2001). In his complaint, plaintiff argued he was denied due process during his prison disciplinary proceedings. Principles

of due process require an inmate receive (1) notice of disciplinary charges at least 24 hours prior to a hearing, (2) the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, and (3) a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied upon to support a finding of guilt. Cannon, 351 Ill. App. 3d at

1127, 815 N.E.2d at 449, citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 955-56, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2978-79 (1974). - 7 -

First, plaintiff contended his due-process rights were violated because the adjustment committee's guilty findings in connection with his October 7, 2005, and October 25, 2005, disciplinary reports were not supported by the evidence. To find

an inmate guilty of a charged offense, the adjustment committee "must be reasonably satisfied there is some evidence that the offender committed the offense." 20 Ill. Adm. Code

Download Ford v. Walker.pdf