KENNETH JOHNSON, Claimant, v . THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, sought $100 for personal property lost during transfer between prisons. The court denied the claim, finding that the claimant's signed receipt stating he received all property shifted the burden back to him, which he failed to overcome.
Cases cited: Doubling v. State (1976), 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1; Ades v. State (1978), 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 193; Moore v. State (1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 114
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PRISONERS AND INMATFS-State’S duty to safeguard inmates’ property. The State of Illinois has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return the property of an inmate of a State correctional facility when that property comes into the State’s actual physical possession during the course of transferring the inmate between facilities.
- SAME-inmate transferred-property lost-inmate failed to explain why he admitted receiving all his property-claim denied. Where an inmate of a correctional facility testified that certain items of his personal property were lost by the State during his transfer between two facilities, the burden of proving due care shifted to the State, but that burden was satisfied by the State’s reliance on a receipt signed b y the inmate admitting that he had received all of his property after the transfer, and the claim was denied in the absence of any explanation from the inmate as to why he admitted receiving all of his property if some of the property was actually missing.
This cause coming to be heard upon the report of the Commissioner, after hearing before said Commissioner, and this Court being fully advised in the premises, Finds that on March 5, 1985, Claimant, Kenneth Johnson, was to be transferred from Pontiac State Prison to Shawnee Prison, but due to a disturbance caused by Claimant he was sent to Menard. Prior to leaving Pontiac, Claimant’s personal property was inventoried by a correctional officer under the observation of Claimant. Claimant watched the officer seal the boxes. When Claimant arrived at Menard, the personal property was [*187] inventoried by another correctional officer. The following property did not arrive at Menard:
a) two pairs of jeans-purchase date unknown b) one pair gym shoes-purchased in October c) twenty-six packs of cigarettes-purchase date unknown d ) three combs-purchase date unknown e) five bath towels Claimant placed a value of $100.00 on the above
I
property.
The State presented no evidence, but relied on the departmental report. The departmental report indicated that on March 9, 1985, Claimant signed an inmate personal property receipt stating, “I have received all of my personal property.”
This Court has held that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes,actual physical possession of such property during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions. Doubling v. State (1976),32 Ill. Ct. C1. 1; Ades v. State (1978), 32 111. Ct. GI. 193.
Claimant’s testimony shifted the burden to Respondent to prove due care. Respondent relied upon Claimant’s admission in the departmental report in which he stated, “I have received all of my personal property.” (Emphasis added.) Claimant’s admission satisfies the State’s burden of proof. (Moore v. State (1980), 34 Ill.
Ct. C1. 114.) Upon receipt of the departmental report, the burden shifted back to Claimant to go forward and overcome or at the very least explain his admission. This he failed to do.
[*188] It is therefore ordered that this claim is denied and Claimant’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.