Opinion
NO. 4-19-0829
05-03-2021
BRYAIN YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN BALDWIN, SHERRY BENTON, TERI KENNEDY, MICHAEL MELVIN, DENVER HEDRICK, JOHN WHEAT, KRISTINA SKEENS, and SEKAYI BAPTIST, Defendants-Appellees.
NOTICE
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston County
No. 18MR108
Honorable Jennifer H. Bauknecht, Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Harris and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding plaintiff did not show his complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
¶ 2 Plaintiff, Bryain Young, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (Department), appeals from the circuit court's judgment dismissing his complaint against various officials and employees of the Department. On appeal, plaintiff argues we should reverse the circuit court's judgment and remand for further proceedings because his complaint sufficiently set forth claims for certiorari relief. We affirm.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 A. Complaint
¶ 5 In July 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to have his prison disciplinary proceedings reviewed under a common-law writ of certiorari. Plaintiff named the following
Department officials and employees as defendants: John Baldwin, Sherry Benton, Teri Kennedy, Michael Melvin, Denver Hedrick, John Wheat, Kristina Skeens, and Sekayi Baptist.
¶ 6 As gleaned from the allegations in plaintiff's complaints and the exhibits attached thereto, on December 21, 2017, at approximately 8:55 a.m., the intelligence unit at Pontiac Correctional Center, the prison in which plaintiff was housed, received information of possible homemade weapons within the East Cell house. After proceeding to the East Cell house, the intelligence unit recovered four homemade weapons which appeared to be knives made from an inmate's knee brace. Plaintiff was interviewed. According to the inmate disciplinary report attached to plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff admitted during the interview to selling his knee brace and "stated he recently has heard about 'knives' that were made from his knee brace." Two confidential informants were also interviewed. The first informant stated "the weapons were made from a knee brace that came from [plaintiff]." The second informant stated, "the metal found came from [plaintiff's] knee brace." The disciplinary report noted the confidential informants had been deemed credible due to information they gave in the past and their corroborating statements. Following the investigation, plaintiff was served with the inmate disciplinary report which charged him with violating prison rules. The report stated, in part, "By [plaintiff] admitting he heard about 'knives' being made from his knee brace and failing to report this information to [s]ecurity [s]taff which resulted in the manufacturing of multiple sharpened instruments found that could be used as a deadly or dangerous weapon is in violation of DR504:601/104 Aiding And Abetting Dangerous Contraband."
¶ 7 An adjustment committee conducted a hearing on the disciplinary charges. At the hearing, plaintiff provided a written statement in which he admitted to selling his knee brace but asserted he did not know it had been used to make knives and did not state otherwise during his
interview. Plaintiff also requested a polygraph test in his written statement. According to a final summary report attached to plaintiff's complaint, the adjustment committee acknowledged plaintiff's written statement and his request for a polygraph test. The adjustment committee also stated the following: "Interview was reviewed, statements were made by [plaintiff] that *** he was aware of what was being done with his knee brace. [Plaintiff] refused to sign interview and refused a voice stress analysis when offered[ ] during the interview." The adjustment committee found the violations of the prison rules occurred as reported and, for the violations, imposed various penalties, including the revocation of good conduct credit.
¶ 8 Plaintiff filed multiple grievances concerning his disciplinary proceedings. In his grievances, plaintiff claimed his due process rights were violated and various Department regulations were not followed. Specifically, plaintiff complained, inter alia, (1) the adjustment committee improperly denied his request to take a polygraph test, (2) his requested witness, David Boswell, was not called to testify, and (3) the charge related to aiding and abetting dangerous contraband was not substantiated where he denied having knowledge that his knee brace was used to make weapons and asserted he did not state otherwise during his interview. Plaintiff's grievances were denied, and the denials were affirmed by an administrative review board.
¶ 9 After exhausting his administrative remedies, plaintiff filed his complaint in the circuit court. In his complaint, plaintiff claimed defendants violated his due process rights and failed to follow various Department regulations. Specifically, plaintiff complained, inter alia, (1) the disciplinary report did not provide him with information concerning when and where the alleged knives were made; (2) his "properly" requested witness, Jason Ward, was not called to testify, (3) the adjustment committee failed to acknowledge his requests in his written statement; and (4) the charge related to aiding and abetting dangerous contraband was not substantiated where
he denied having knowledge that his knee brace was used to make weapons and asserted he did not state otherwise during his interview.
¶ 10 B. Motion to Dismiss
¶ 11 In April 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)). Defendants argued plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted where the allegations in the complaint and exhibits attached thereto demonstrated the disciplinary proceedings satisfied the requirements of due process.
¶ 12 C. Dismissal
¶ 13 In October 2019, the circuit court, after receiving a response to defendants' motion to dismiss from plaintiff, entered a docket entry granting defendants' motion to dismiss, finding, "A review of the record including the exhibits attached to plaintiff's [complaint] show that he did receive all due process rights he is afforded."
¶ 14 This appeal followed.
¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 16 On appeal, plaintiff argues we should reverse the circuit court's judgment and remand for further proceedings because his complaint sufficiently set forth claims for certiorari relief. Defendants disagree.
¶ 17 Defendants sought, and the circuit court granted, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Civil Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)). A complaint should not be dismissed under section 2-615 "unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recover." Roberts v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, 2019 IL 123594, ¶ 21, 135 N.E.3d 891. In making that determination, a court
"must take as true all well-pled allegations of fact contained in the complaint and exhibits attached thereto." Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 365, 789 N.E.2d 1216, 1219 (2003). We review a circuit court's judgment granting a section 2-615 motion to dismiss de novo. Roberts, 2019 IL 123594, ¶ 21.
¶ 18 As an initial matter, plaintiff briefly asserts his complaint sufficiently set forth claims for certiorari relief based upon defendants' alleged failure to follow Department regulations. We disagree. Our supreme court has made clear the failure to follow Department regulations does not, by itself, create an independent right of action allowing an inmate to file suit in state court to compel a correctional officer to comply with the regulations. Fillmore v. Taylor, 2019 IL 122626, ¶ 47, 137 N.E.3d 779.
¶ 19 Turning to plaintiff's primary assertion on appeal, plaintiff asserts his complaint sufficiently set forth claims for certiorari relief based upon defendants' alleged violations of his due process rights. An inmate who is subject to disciplinary proceedings which may result in the loss of good conduct credit is entitled to certain due process guarantees. Id. ¶ 57. The inmate must receive:
"(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges, (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and (3) a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action." Id. (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974)).
Additionally, to comport with due process, the findings of any disciplinary board "must be supported by some evidence in the record." Id. Properly pled allegations of a denial of due process
are reviewable in an action for certiorari. Id. ¶ 67.
¶ 20 First, plaintiff contends he sufficiently alleged a denial of due process based upon the disciplinary report not providing him with information concerning when and where the alleged knives were made. We disagree. Due process did not require the intelligence unit to determine the exact time or place the knives were made prior to bringing the charges against plaintiff. See Clayton-El v. Lane, 203 Ill. App. 3d 895, 901, 561 N.E.2d 183, 187 (1990) ("Due process is satisfied when the accused is apprised of the charges against him with enough specificity to enable him to prepare a defense.").
¶ 21 Second, plaintiff contends he sufficiently alleged a denial of due process based upon the adjustment committee not calling Ward as a witness after he properly requested the adjustment committee to do so. We disagree. During the administrative proceedings, plaintiff did not take issue with the adjustment committee's alleged refusal to call Ward as a witness and, therefore, has forfeited the issue for review. See Demesa v. Adams, 2013 IL App (1st) 122608, ¶ 52, 994 N.E.2d 1007 ("It is well settled that on administrative review a party forfeits any issue that it failed to raise in proceedings before the administrative agency."). Moreover, we find plaintiff's conclusory assertion that he properly requested to call Ward as a witness is insufficient absent any supporting allegations of fact concerning how he submitted the request.
¶ 22 Third, plaintiff contends he sufficiently alleged a denial of due process based upon the adjustment committee's failure to administer to him a polygraph test. We disagree. Due process did not require the adjustment committee to administer a polygraph test. See Torres v. Walker, 364 Ill. App. 3d 666, 671, 848 N.E.2d 156, 159 (2006) (noting that "due process does not require the use of polygraph testing in disciplinary proceedings").
¶ 23 Last, plaintiff contends he sufficiently alleged a denial of due process based upon
the lack of evidence supporting the adjustment committee's finding concerning the aiding and abetting of dangerous contraband where he denied having knowledge that his knee brace was used to make weapons and asserted he did not state otherwise during his interview. We disagree. According to the final summary report from the adjustment committee, plaintiff's "[i]nterview was reviewed" and "statements were made by [plaintiff] that *** he was aware of what was being done with his knee brace." The adjustment committee also noted plaintiff "refused to sign interview and refused a voice stress analysis when offered[ ] during the interview." From this evidence, the committee could find plaintiff's statements unbelievable and find him in violation of the prison rules as they relate to the aiding and abetting of dangerous contraband. See 20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.Appendix A (April 1, 2017) (Nos. 104, 601); Fillmore, 2019 IL 122626, ¶ 57 ("Ascertaining whether [the some-evidence standard] has been met does not require examination of the entire record, an independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or a weighing of the evidence. [Citation.] Rather, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the disciplinary board's conclusion.").
¶ 24 In summary, plaintiff has not shown his complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and therefore, we must affirm the circuit court's judgment dismissing his complaint.
¶ 25 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 26 We affirm the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 27 Affirmed.