Michael Tolbert v. State of Illinois

OPINION

BIRNBAUM, J. This claim is before the Court upon a recommendation from Commissioner LaGuina Clay-Clark following an evidentiary hearing.

Claimant, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed a complaint on February 24, 2003 alleging personal injury due to inadequate and unsanitary living conditions. Claimant seeks $7,050 as compensation.

FACTS

An evidentiary hearing was conducted before Commissioner ClayClark on June 8, 2005. Evidence was presented at the hearing that during the operative dates of May 29, 2002 through September 9, 2002 Claimant was an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center. Claimant testified that on May 29, 2002 toilet water flooded down the walls and into Claimant’s cell from the cell above. Claimant stated that his mattress, sheets, pillow, pillow case, blanket and jumpsuit were soiled as a result. Claimant testified that toilet water was all over [*309] the walls and floor. Claimant alleged that he notified the officer on duty and complained for several days, but received no assistance despite numerous requests. Claimant stated that he slept on a bare steel bed and used clothes and a coat as bedding. On June 2, 2002, Claimant filed a grievance requesting to have the items replaced and the cell cleaned. The counselor’s response dated June 11, 2002 stated in pertinent part, “cell will be cleaned during shower time on 3-11 shift”. Claimant alleges that on June 3, 2002, he submitted his bedding and jumpsuit for cleaning. By June 25, 2002, Claimant stated that he still had not received any relief and filed a second grievance requesting a clean mattress, bedding, jumpsuit and disinfectant to clean his cell. The response, dated July 2, 2002 states, “By your own admission you received sheets. Once they find a washable mattress you will be issued a replacement one”. On August 6, 2002, Claimant filed a third grievance again requesting a clean mattress. On August 15, 2002, the counselor responded, “After speaking with correctional officer, you will be issued a replacement mattress”. By August 26, 2002, Claimant filed a fourth grievance still seeking a mattress. The counselor response, issued on August 29, 2002 stated that Claimant would be issued a mattress on September 9, 2002. The Grievance Officer’s Report recommended that the issue be referred to the unit superintendent to ensure that Claimant’s cell be cleaned and that he received another mattress and clean bedding. Claimant was finally issued a new mattress on September 9, 2002.

Also, within the Grievance Officer’s Report was IDOC’s Department Rule 504 D Segregation Standards, which reads:

Standards for living conditions in segregation areas shall include the following provisions: Minimally each cell shall be furnished with:

1. A bed for each committed person securely fastened to the cell; 2. Clean bedding, including a mattress, blanket, sheets, pillow and a pillow case for each committed person; 3. A wash basin with running water and flushable toilets; and 4. Adequate lighting for reading and observation purposes.

Respondent called Dr. Partha S. Ghosh Tilden, a physician and the medical director at Stateville since 2003. He reviewed Claimant’s medical records and testified that Claimant had no entries in his records during the time of May 29, 2002 through September 9, 2002 where he sought medical treatment.

Claimant contends that he did seek medical help on the gallery from medical technicians on several occasions.

[*310] Claimant contends that while attempting to get his situation rectified, he spoke with everyone that he could, even the sanitation officer, but to no avail.

He argues that the State was negligent by failing to provide him with a safe and sanitary living condition and it does not matter that he had no doctor’s visits during this time. Claimant maintains that Respondent is therefore liable to him in damages in the amount of $7,050. Claimant explained that he seeks $100 for the 28 days that he went without the mattress, bedding and jumpsuit totaling $2,800, and $50 a day for the 85 days that he remained without everything except the sheets totaling $4,250, yielding a grand total of $7,050.

Respondent argues that Claimant’s medical records show that he suffered no damages as a result of the inconvenience and contends that Claimant admitted that he attempted to clean his own cell with soap and water.

Respondent also argues that it is questionable that Claimant was actually without a pillow and blanket because Claimant did not specifically enumerate those items in his grievances. Respondent therefore denies any liability.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In order to sustain a negligence claim against the State, Claimant must show by the preponderance of the evidence that the State owed a duty to Claimant, that duty was breached and that the breach was the proximate cause of the Claimant’s injuries. Dye v. State (1995), 48 Ill.Ct.Cl. 452, 455. In the case at the bar, Claimant has met his burden of proof. The record before us clearly establishes that the State was negligent in that it failed to provide Claimant with even the minimal provisions as prescribed by its rule 504D. Therefore, we find liability.

The Court has held that the State is responsible for damage caused by flooding in the absence of evidence that an inmate caused the flooding. The management of the plumbing facilities in the cells housing inmates of IDOC is clearly the responsibility of IDOC, and this Court has found that when damage has been caused by something under the Respondent’s management and the damages are such that, in the ordinary course of events, they would not have happened if the Respondent had exercised proper care, the incident itself afford reasonable evidence that the damages arose out of the Respondent’s want of due care Jackson v. State (1992), 45 Ill.Ct.Cl. 314, Newsome v. State (1986), 38 Ill.Ct.Cl. 299.

The issue of damages is more difficult. The Court clearly has the authority to order money damages for Respondent’s failure to perform its duty to provide minimal living provisions, however, the amount of damages is part of Claimant’s burden of proof, Rivera v. State (1985), 38 Ill.Ct.Cl. 272. The medical records show that Claimant manifested no actual physical harm, however as in Williams-El v. State, (1987) 40 Ill.Ct.Cl. 182, 183, this Court awarded damages to an inmate for anxiety notwithstanding the fact the claimant was not physically injured since the actions of the IDOC agent went beyond the normal hazards of prison life. Claimant cites Maxwell v. Mason, 668 F2nd 361 (1985) in support of demand for $7,050 in damages. We find the case is distinguishable. Maxwell is a federal civil rights action from Nebraska. Thus, it [*311] is not controlling. Also, Maxwell involves the intentional deprivation of clothing and bedding as a method of punishing a prisoner in segregation.

In the case at the bar, we find that allowing Claimant to remain in an unsanitary, contaminated cell for over three months, without a mattress and proper bedding went beyond the normal hazards of prison life. Claimant’s loss of his right to a cell with the minimal provisions and the anxiety it created is compensable. It is therefore ordered that Claimant is awarded $350.00 (Three Hundred Fifty Dollars).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that MICHAEL TOLBERT is awarded $350.00 in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.