HENRY HURST,Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respond- ent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, sought reimbursement for personal property lost during an inmate attack and for items stolen from his cell. The court denied the claim, finding no special circumstances for cell theft and insufficient evidence of negligence by state agents.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- P RISONERS AND INMATa-State not an insurer of safety of inmate’s property. State is not an insurer of the safety of inmates or of the preservation of inmate’s personal property while in State institutions.
- SAME-inmate’s property taken b y other inmates-claim denied. Inmate’s claim for property taken from him by other inmates denied as evidence established at institutional grievance proceeding that no agents of the institution available to, assist Claimant when his property was taken and Claimant offered no evidence to justify reversing the result of the institutional inquiry.
- SAME-inmate’s property taken from his cell by other inmates-claim denied. Inmate’s claim for property taken from his cell by other inmates on I I theory that State was negligent in not locking his cell denied where property was not shown to be in possession of State or lost while in possession of agents of State and unexplained thefts from prisoner’s cell cannot result in II the award absent special circumstances. I
I
Claimant, an inmate at an Illinois correctional institution, makes claim‘ against the State of Illinois for loss of personal property by Claimant in an attack by other inmates, which allegedly ‘occurred in the presence of unidentified personnel of Respondent.
On the occasion in question, Claimant was returning from the commissary with various items of commissary goods alleged by Claimant to total $75.00. Claimant alleges that he was attacked in plain view of Respondent’s officers, who did not offer assistance so as to prevent the attack or Claimant’s subsequent loss of personal property.
Additionally, Claimant seeks reimbursement for various items of personal property allegedly removed by other inmates from his cell as a result of a failure on the part of Respondent to deadlock Claimant’s cell while Claimant was absent from the cell. As to this latter series of losses, Claimant alleges that other inmates were guilty of stealing his property.
First, with respect to the value of items allegedly removed from Claimant’s cell, it has been the longstanding policy of this Court that such unexplained thefts from prisoners’ cells cannot result in an award absent special circumstances, which do not appear of record in this case. There is no showing in the record that Claimant’s personal property was ever in the possession of Respondent or was lokt or misplaced while in the possession of Respondent’s agents.
[*183] As to the allegations of Claimant regarding the incident first set forth above, it is noted that an institutional grievance proceeding filed by Claimant charging Respondent’s agents with negligence in failing to come to Claimant’s assistance resulted in an institutional decision that no negligence was indicated on the part of Respondent’s agent. The record is silent as to sufficient proof to justify this Court in effect reversing the result of an institutional inquiry into this allegation of negligence on the part of Respondent’s agent.
It should be noted that in the departmental report, Major McDonough, who did not testify at the hearing in this cause, stated that although he was aware Claimant was attacked by two residents in East Cell House, that there were no officers “around that could help Hurst.”
The State is not an insurer of the safety of inmates or of the preservation of inmates’ personal property while in State institutions.
It is therefore ordered that the claim is denied.