Washington v. Walker

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2009 » Washington v. Walker

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-08-0006 Rel

Case Date: 05/07/2009

Preview:NO. 4-08-0006 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT RAYMOND WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROGER E. WALKER, JR., SHERRY BENTON, DONALD A. HULICK, BRUCE R. FISHER, and CARLETTE GORDON, Defendants-Appellees.

Filed 5/7/09

) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) Sangamon County ) No. 07MR148 ) ) Honorable ) Leo J. Zappa, Jr., ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court: In April 2007, plaintiff, Raymond Washington, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a pro se complaint for certiorari. In his complaint,

Washington sought an order directing defendants, Roger Walker, Director of the DOC; Sherry Benton, member of the Administrative Review Board; Bruce Fisher, chairperson of the Adjustment Committee; and Charlotte Gordon, member of the Adjustment Committee, to return him to Illinois River Correctional Center (Illinois River). Washington alleged defendants transferred him from

Illinois River as a punishment for a fight and such transfer should have been reversed after the disciplinary ticket resulting from that fight had been expunged. In June 2007, defendants Walker and Benton moved to dismiss Caldwell's petition under sections 2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2615 (West 2006)) and 2-619(a)(9) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2006)) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). In their motion,

defendants argued Washington's complaint failed to state a claim

because, in part, he was not entitled to a transfer, and Washington's claims were barred under the doctrine of laches. In August 2007, the trial court dismissed Washington's petition. Washington appeals. On appeal, Washington argues his

petition is not barred by the doctrine of laches and the disciplinary transfer should have been overturned when the disciplinary ticket was expunged. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND The transfer at issue stemmed from a February 2006 incident that resulted in charges against Washington of giving false information to an employee and assaulting an inmate. The

Adjustment Committee's final summary report shows Scott Books, an officer at Illinois River, provided a statement at the hearing. According to Officer Books, on February 12, 2006, he "was aggressively summoned by [inmate] Cox." Cox, who had "numerous wet

areas on his shirt and was very aggravated," told Officer Books that Washington had thrown hot water on him. When Officer Books

spoke to Washington, Washington told him, "It was an accident." Washington, who appeared subdued and nervous, asked Officer Books if he could "let it go." Officer Books stated Washington did not Washington complied with Cox remained

say he did not throw the water on Cox.

Officer Books's order to leave his cell and wing. threatening and aggressive.

In the same report, the record of proceedings indicates Washington stated he was not guilty. Washington asserted he

asked that two witnesses, Alvarez, an inmate, and Lieutenant - 2 -

Huggins, be interviewed, but they were not.

Washington identi-

fied Alvarez as a witness to the incident and Lieutenant Huggins as the first on the scene. Regarding the incident, Washington stated Cox was lying. Cox entered his cell and used threatening language.

Then, according to Washington, the following occurred: "I said to Alverez I was going to [']open a can of whoop ass,['] going to lift some weights. some pain. Alverez. on. I said I was going to open

He thought I was talking to He said I went back to get my shoes He said I I never left.

I already had my shoes on.

came back and put my shoes on. I didn't want to be weak. he was not weak.

The young man said

I stepped to him and said

he is weak because he could not tough [sic] with the iron. He stepped towards me and my He pushed

coffee split [sic] on the wall.

the coffee as we were face-to-face, in a Mexican standoff. Most of it hit the wall.

I said I was sorry in the most expedient manner. I said I was sorry. He left out and

got a broom.

He [(Inmate Alvarez)] never

said anything about him getting the broom. He came at me. That is a weapon. He came to

my cell with the broom.

He came and swung

- 3 -

the broom.

He did not hit me good.

The I

brush part hit my back and I hit the rail. told Lt. Huggins it was an accident. tioned weak and looked at him. derogatory. I men-

He took it

He ran out of the cell and went Books came and got me. Books

and got Books.

said he only had a couple of wet marks on him. In a[n] 8[-]ounce cup of coffee, I had

drank [sic] most of it and got more on me than on him." The Adjustment Committee found Washington guilty of assaulting an inmate but not guilty of giving false information to an employee. The committee based its decision on Officer

Books's incident report establishing the "wet marks" on Cox's shirt and "Cox was very aggravated," and on the fact Washington "was in the area of the offense and had knowledge of the offense." The Adjustment Committee also noted this was defendant's The

second inmate fight; the first occurred in December 2005.

disciplinary action included one-month's C grade, one-month's segregation, and a disciplinary transfer. At some point, Wash-

ington was transferred from Illinois River to Lawrence Correctional Center (Lawrence). Washington filed a grievance. Washington argued, in

part, his witnesses had not been called before the Adjustment Committee. By report dated April 26, 2006, the Administrative

Review Board determined the February 2006 disciplinary report - 4 -

should be expunged because it did not comply with Department Rule 504.90 (20 Ill. Adm. Code

Download Washington v. Walker.pdf