RICHARD LINDWALL, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, alleged the Department of Corrections violated the Unified Code of Corrections by overcharging at the commissary. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding no private cause of action under the statute or the Illinois State Auditing Act.
Statutes cited: 735 ILCS 5/2-619; 705 ILCS 505/8; 705 ILCS 505/8(a); 730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a; 730 ILCS 5/3-7-2(a)
Cases cited: McNeil v. Carter, 742 N.E.2d 1277 (2001); Ashley v. Snyder, 739 N.E.2d 897 (2000); Ziegler v. State of Illinois, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 405 (2002); Calederon v. State of Illinois, 60 Ill. Ct. Cl. 280 (2008); Garimella v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 350 (1996); Walsh v. State, 60 Ill. Ct. Cl. 238 (2008)
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 policies- The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to review or interfere in matters of administrative policies, decisions, or discretion of the Department of Corrections and its employees. Complaints challenging administrative discretion fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by this Court.
- Lack of jurisdiction- The Unified Code of Corrections and the Illinois State Auditing Act do not provide Claimant with any private cause of action. Without a specific statutory provision granting the Court power to issue injunctions, it is without jurisdiction to do so.
ORDER
Birnbaum, J.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
Nature of the Claim
Claimant is currently an inmate incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center, alleging that the Illinois Department of Corrections has violated the Unified Code of Corrections provision relating to the pricing of inventory in the inmate commissary.
(Compl. ¶ 10).
The Unified Code of Corrections states in pertinent part:
If a facility maintains a commissary or commissaries
serving inmates, the selling process for all goods shall be
sufficient to cover the costs of the goods and an
additional charge of up to 35% for tobacco products and
up to 25% for non-tobacco products.
The amount of the
additional charges for goods sold at the commissaries [*250]
serving inmates shall be based upon the amount
necessary to pay for the wages and benefits of
commissary employees...
730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a.
Claimant bases this assertion on the Compliance Audits conducted by the Illinois Office of the Auditor General.
This report concludes that the Department was adding an additional charge in violation of the amount authorized by the Unified Code of Corrections.
Specifically, Claimant asserts he is owed for the illegal mark-up amount of $528.17 (Compl. ¶ 8).
Analysis
Respondent argues that this claim should be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction under 705 ILCS 505/8(a), as Claimant lacks a cause of action.
Specifically, they argue the Compliance Audits, basing their findings on the Unified Code of Corrections, create no private cause of action right for Claimant.
McNeil v.
Carter, 742 N.E. 2d 1277, 1281 (2001).
Additionally, Respondents discuss the intent of the Unified Code is in providing guidance to prison officials in the administration of prisons, and not a law creating more rights than constitutionally required for inmates.
Ashley v. Snyder, 739 N.E. 2d 897, 902 (2000).
The Illinois Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction granted by the General Assembly.
If a subject matter is not enumerated or encompassed by the jurisdictional grant in the enabling Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/8), and if jurisdiction over that subject is not granted by another Illinois statute, that subject does not lie within this Court's adjudicatory jurisdiction to hear and determine claims against the State.
Ziegler v. State of Illinois, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 405 (2002); [*251] Calederon v. State of Illinois, 60 Ill. Ct. Cl. 280 (2008).
This Court concludes that Claimant lacks a cause of action, as the Unified Code of Corrections and the Illinois State Auditing Act fail to provide Claimant with any private cause of action.
Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 705 ILCS 505/8(a) and Claimant's claim for monetary damages of $528.17 must be dismissed.
While this Court is sympathetic to Claimant's frustration of the Department's alleged continued noncompliance of 730 ILCS 5/3-7-2(a), it agrees with Respondent that it lacks the power to issue injunctive relief prohibiting Respondents from continuing their practice of overcharging.
Garimella v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 350 (1996); Walsh v. State, 60 Ill. Ct. Cl. 238 (2008).
In Garimella, this Court concluded that without a specific statutory provision empowering this Court to issue injunctions, it was without jurisdiction to do so.
Id.
It is the opinion of this Court that the Court of Claims does not have the power to issue injunctive orders requiring 730 ILCS 5/3-7-2(a) compliance to the Department of Corrections.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 is GRANTED.