WILLIE WILSON, Claimant, u. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, a prisoner, sought damages for the delayed delivery of his mittimus and for loss of personal property. The court found no damages from the delay but awarded $125.00 for lost property based on a constructive bailment theory.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, par. 10-105
Cases cited: People v. Perfenbrink (1879), 96 Ill. 68; Reardon v. People (1907), 123 Ill. App. 81; People v. Green (1917), 281 Ill. 52; Voss v. Bruntley (1973), 13 Ill. App. 3d 672; Blount v. State (1982), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 790; Owens v. State (1985), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 150; Lewis v. State (1985), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 254; Walker v. State (1986), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 286; Rivera v. State (1985), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 272
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PRISONERS AND INMATES-inmates have right to receive mittimus within six hours o f demand. Pursuant to the provisions of section 10-105 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, an inmate in a State correctional facility has a right to receive a copy of his mittimus within six hours of his demand for a copy, and in the event of a violation of that statutory right, damages of up to $500 may be awarded in an action brought by the inmate pro se in the Court of Claims.
- SAME-technical violation of right to receive mittimus within six hours o f demand-inmate suffered no real d a m a g e s 4 1 awarded. An inmate of a new State correctional facility suffered no real damages although the State technically violated his statutory right to receive a copy of his mittimus within six hours of his demand for a copy, since the institution was new, no procedures had been developed for complying with the statutory requirements as to providing copies of an inmate’s mittimus, the staff was unaware of the requirement, the violation was not intentional, and the inmate did not promptly file a writ of habeas corpus after the mittimus was delivered, and therefore minimal damages of $1were awarded.
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 17, 1986, the Claimant, Willie Wilson, a prisoner at the Danville State Correctional Center, made a written demand on the warden of that institution for a copy of his mittimus on March 17, 1986, at 8:OO a.m. A second request was made on March 19, 1986, at 8:OO a.m. Claimant requested his mittimus so he could file a petition for habeas corpus. The mittimus was delivered to Claimant on March 21, 1986, at 4:OO p.m. Therefore, it is undisputed that Claimant did not receive his mittimus papers in six (6) hours as required by statute.
Evidence from the employees of the institution indicated that Claimant’s request came shortly after the institution was opened and no procedures were in place to comply with mittimus requests within the six-hour time limit. Employees of the institution did not intentionally delay the delivery; they did not know of the statute or the six-hour time limit until this lawsuit was brought.
Claimant testified that he requested the mittimus on March 17, 1986. He wanted to file a writ of habeas corpus. In 1981, Claimant was incarcerated with the [*223] Illinois Department of Corrections out of Cook County. On January 23,1982, Claimant requested and received a copy of his mittimus papers while at the prison in Pontiac, Illinois. Claimant filed for a writ of habeas corpus prior to coming to Danville from Stateville Correctional Center. He never filed a writ after March 17, 1986, when he requested a copy of his mittimus papers. On November 25, 1986, at the time of hearing, Claimant was still working on his writ.
This is a case of first impression in the Illinois Court of Claims. There are four (4)cases in the State courts which have dealt with section 10-105 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, par. 10-105). They are: People v . Perfenbrink (1879), 96 111. 68, Reardon v . People (1907), 123 Ill. App. 81, People v. Green (1917), 281 111.52, and Voss v . Bruntley (1973), 13 111. App. 3d 672.
The Respondent argues the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction of this cause and that the claim must be brought by the Attorney General or State’s Attorney. Such a reading of the statute is too restrictive as the forfeiture is to inure to the benefit of the prisoner and any amounts recovered must without deduction be paid to the prisoner. The Claimant may proceed in the Court of Claims and may proceed pro se. For the Attorney General to represent Claimant would put Respondent in a position of legal conflict which is certainly not the intent of the law. The statute is clear that a sheriff or other officer or person having custody of any prisoner must deliver the mittimus to the prisoner within six (6) hours of demand. The purpose of the Act puts the onus of those incarcerating persons to get papers to prisoners in short order so they may seek habeas corpus relief, a relief specifically protected by the constitution.
[*224] In this case, the Claimant did receive his mittimus papers on his first request while he was in the custody of the Department of Corrections at Pontiac. His first petition for habeas corpus had been denied. The Claimant has suffered no real damages from the failure of the Danville administration to deliver the mittimus papers within six (6) hours as he had not even filed a writ by November 1986. The failure to comply with the statute was not intentional, but due to the newness of the institution and its employees who were developing procedures.
Under Voss v . Brantley (1973), 13 Ill. App. 3d 672, damages may be assessed from 01/100, ($.01) to five hundred dollars, ($500.00).Respondent’s violation of the statute was a mere technical violation, and Claimant has suffered no real damages.
It is hereby ordered that an award of one dollar and 0/100 ($1.00) is hereby entered in favor of Claimant, said award being in full and complete satisfaction of Claimant’s complaint.
( No . 87-CC-0024-Claimant awarded $125.00.)
JAMES FOSTER, Claimant, o.THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Respondent.
Opinion filed November 19,1987.
JAMES FOSTER, pro se, for Claimant.
NEIL F. H ARTIGAN, Attorney General (S UZANNE SCHMITZ, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
NECLICENCE-inmate’S lost property claim-constructive bailment-res ipsa loquitur applicable. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable when [*225] an inmate presents a claim for the loss of personal property and the evidence establishes a constructive bailment of the property which the State is unable to rebut.
PRISONERS AND INMATES-lost property-constructive bailment unrebutted-claim allowed. An inmate of a correctional center established a case of constructive bailment by presenting evidence that certain items of his personal property were lost after a guard had deadlocked his cell and the inmate left, and the inmate was entitled to an award, since the State was unable to rebut the constructive bailment.
DAMAGES-inmate's lost property claim-depreciation should be applied in assessing damages. In determining the amount of an award in the case of a lost property claim filed by an inmate of a State correctional center, the Court of Claims must consider the depreciation in value of those items which have been used since the date they were acquired by the inmate.
PRISONERS AND INMATES-lost property claim-depreciation applied in assessing damages-award of $125 granted. In the matter of a claim for the loss of personal property by an inmate, the Court of Claims granted an award of $125, since the inmate failed to prove the value of two items which were lost and the inmate's claim was reduced to account for the depreciation in value of certain items.
DILLARD, J. 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 October 10, 1985, Claimant was an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center in Pontiac, Illinois. At 11:00 a.m. on that date, he left his cell and had it deadlocked. The Claimant was known by the institution to deadlock his cell whenever he was away for a lengthy period of time. On October 10, 1985 an officer deadlocked the Claimant's cell when Claimant went to the Administration Building. When the cell door closes, it automatically locks and then an officer takes a key and double locks it. Claimant walked back to his cell to be sure the cell was locked. Approximately 2:00 p.m. that date, Claimant returned to his cell and he and an officer noticed Claimant's cell had been taken off deadlock. When the Claimant entered his cell, he found [*226] that items of personal property were missing. He informed an officer immediately of what had happened and made out a claim and incident report.
The property taken was as follows:
(a) A Panasonic radio purchased in January of 1985 for $49.30;
(b) Stereo headphones purchased in February of 1985 for $26.35;
(c) Aim converter box purchased in July of 1985 for $30.00;
( d ) Commissary items of food and cosmetics purchased that week for $30 to $50;
(e) Stereo tape player and three cassette tapes claimed in the Bill of Particulars belonging to another inmate. Claimant was repairing the tape player for the inmate. The Bill of Particulars indicates these were worth $56.00. Claimant testified he had to pay the other inmate for the property.
None of the property was ever returned to Claimant. Claimant believed he did everything he could to protect his property. Inmates don’t have keys to the cells, only officers have keys. All prisoners have ID’S and the officers had sheets showing who belongs in the respective cells. The case was presented to the Department of Corrections Administrative Review Board. The Board split with the majority voting to reimburse Claimant for his loss. The Director, however, overruled the majority.
The officers corroborated that the cell was double locked but when Claimant returned, the double lock had been taken off. This present case is factually similar to Blount v . State (1982), 35 Ill. Ct. C1. 790.
[*227] There is no evidence before the Court that anyone else without a key could have taken the property. A presumption therefore arises that this is a constructive bailment which the State has not rebutted. (Owens v . State (1985), 38 Ill. Ct. C1. 150; Lewis o. State (1985), 38 Ill. Ct. C1. 254.) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case as in Walker v. State (1986),38 Ill. Ct. C1. 286.
Claimant has proven his case, therefore, the issue remains as to damages. The Claimant proved what he paid for the radio, headphones, converter box, and the commissary goods. He failed, however, to prove the value of the stereo tape player and tapes or what he paid to another inmate for these items. (See Rivera v. State (1985),38 Ill. Ct. C1.272.) Furthermore, the items should be reduced for depreciation except those from the commissary. Therefore, it is
Ordered that an award of $125.00 is hereby entered in favor of Claimant, said award being in full and complete satisfaction of Claimant's complaint.