JACKIE WILSON, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, sought return of items purchased from an outside vendor that were denied as contraband after his transfer to another prison. The court denied the claim, holding that the prison had authority to restrict inmate property under security rules and that claimant was properly advised of disposition options.
Cases cited: Smith v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 208 (1998); Montgomery v. State, 41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 190 (1988); Brady v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 240 (1977); Holmes v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274 (1978)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Prisoners and Inmates - Administrative decisions within discretion of prison - It is not the role of the Court to act as a review over the administration of prison regulations except where violations of existing regulations tends to establish liability under recognized principles of tort law.
- Prisoners and Inmates - Personal Property allowed in one prison can be contraband in another - Claimant who ordered certain approved personal items while incarcerated in one prison was subsequently moved to a different facility that did not allow those items. Court held facility has authority to restrict inmate personal property in accordance with departmental security rules.
OPINION
STEFFEN, J.
This claim is before the Court by way of evidentiary hearing conducted March 13, 2007 at Springfield, Illinois before Commissioner Murphy utilizing video teleconferencing with Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”).
Claimant Jackie Wilson, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), while incarcerated at Menard ordered, with approval, several items from an outside source on November 18, 2003. Shortly thereafter claimant was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”) at which time he was denied the items ordered based upon administrative policy and procedure. Claimant filed a grievance and it was denied. Claimant received further review of his claim by the Administrative Review Board and the claim was denied. Claimant filed this Complaint on November 8, 2005 seeking return of the items he purchased from the outside vendor plus compensatory damages for emotional injuries and punitive damages from respondent for refusal to release his property plus costs of suit.
[*278] FACTS
Claimant testified at hearing that on November 18, 2003 he filled out an order form for merchandise to be purchased from J.L. Marcus for personal items including a television set, a cassette recorder, earphones, personal stereo items and several other items of clothing. At that time, the purchase was approved by Major Tom Lowery. On December 8, 2003, claimant was transferred to Pontiac. Claimant wrote J.L. Marcus and advised them of his new address and the items were shipped to Pontiac. Claimant testified that he was denied access to the property because it was not purchased from the institutional commissary.
On cross-examination claimant testified that a few of the items were eventually given to him and he is not making a claim for those items which included shoes, socks, and thermal top and bottom. Claimant admitted that he received a letter from Deputy Director Meek and later a notice from Counselor Wiles informing him that the items he had ordered were considered contraband. Personal Property Officer Petty issued claimant a shake-down slip and claimant admitted he was informed on February 29, 2004 that he needed to decide whether he wanted the items mailed, picked up or destroyed. Claimant did not respond to that notice but, instead, filed a grievance. On May 28, 2004 claimant received a letter from Warden Mote that he had several items of audio-visual equipment that did not meet department security criteria. Claimant admitted that he understood such items would be considered contraband according to departmental rules.
Respondent called no witnesses and agreed that all relevant materials to claimant’s Complaint were attached thereto. Those attachments were admitted into evidence.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
It is not the role of the Court to Act as a review over the administration of prison regulations except where violations of existing regulations tends to establish liability under recognized principles of tort law. Smith v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 208 (1998), Montgomery v. State, 41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 190 (1988), Brady v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 240 (1977), Holmes v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274 (1978). Here, claimant has alleged that his purchase was approved by authorities at Menard, the items at issue present no security risks, and that other similar items exist within the institutions that were purchased from outside vendors.
Clearly, Pontiac has authority to restrict inmate personal property according to departmental security rules. Further, claimant was properly advised of the methods for disposition of the property considered to be contraband.
[*279] CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, claimant’s Complaint is denied.