Malcolm Wiggins v. State of Illinois

ORDER

BURNS, J.

This cause comes before the Court on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 and 74 Ill. Admin. Code §790.90. The Claimant did not file a response. The Court having read the pleadings and being fully advised, finds:

FACTS

The material facts in this case are not in dispute. The Claimant is an inmate in the care of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). The Complaint alleges that on [*88] July 15, 2008, the Respondent lost certain items of clothing belonging to the Claimant while the items were in Respondent's possession at the prison laundry. The Bill of Particulars states that the lost clothing items consisted of 8 pairs of boxers, 8 pairs of socks, 4 T-shirts, 2 pairs of gym shorts, 2 pairs of sweatpants, 2 bath towels, and 2 face towels, for a total value of $127.66.

Claimant filed a grievance. The Grievance Officer's Report determined that the current cost of replacement was $23.65. Claimant appealed and the grievance board affirmed the award. On January 13, 2009, the Respondent deposited $23.65 into the Claimant's inmate trust account.

On June 25, 2010, the Claimant filed this Complaint arguing that he is entitled to be reimbursed an additional $104.01, the difference between the claimed replacement cost and the $23.65 received pursuant to his grievance. The Claimant attached to the Complaint an exhibit that showed copies of receipts from 2004 and 2006 for various items of clothing.

Respondent argues in its Motion to Dismiss that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the administrative decisions of the IDOC and that the Claimant has been compensated for his lost property satisfying his claim; i.e., accord and satisfaction.

ANALYSIS

It is well-settled that this Court will not act as a court of review over the administration of prison regulations except in cases where proof of violations of existing regulations tends to establish liability of the Respondent under recognized principles of tort law. Montgomery v. State, 41 Ill.Ct.Cl. 190 (1988). See also Wilson v. State, 60 Ill.Ct.Cl. 277, 278 (2008). In addition, the Court has held specifically that it is proper, when circumstances warrant, for the Respondent, in determining the replacement value of items lost or destroyed, to depreciate the value of said items because of age or use. Smith v. State, 46 Ill.Ct.Cl. 307 (1994). However, depreciation depends upon the circumstances of the claim and should not be confiscatory. Id. If the Court finds that the depreciation is excessive under the circumstances, it may award additional damages. Hamilton v. State, 45 Ill.Ct.Cl. 324 (1992); Seats v. State, 46 Ill.Ct.Cl. 418(1994).

The Respondent argues that even if we were to sit in review of the depreciation amount, the Claimant nonetheless has received full "accord and satisfaction" by virtue of his having received a payment deposit into his inmate trust account. In Hamilton, supra, this Court expressly rejected this theory. 45 Ill.Ct.Cl. 324, 325 (1992). We agree with Hamilton that the mere act of the Respondent placing money into an inmate's trust fund does not necessarily amount to a full satisfaction and accord agreed to by the inmate.

[*89] However, the Claimant still bears the burden of showing that the amount of depreciation applied in this case was either confiscatory or excessive under the circumstances. We find that the Claimant has not met this burden. The record shows that the Respondent followed Administrative Directive 02.06.110 ("Inmate Property Loss"), stating that items of clothing shall be valued at no more than half the replacement cost. The Claimant produced receipts for various items of clothing totaling $39.78. The Respondent applied a total depreciation of $16.13, or just over 40%, which is actually less than what the Respondent could have applied under its own guidelines.

The Claimant, however, argues that the $23.65 award is inadequate. In support of his position, the Claimant cites Hamilton and Seats, supra, which acknowledged that a prisoner's situation is different from a civilian in that the prisoner's only option in such situations is to purchase an item new at the commissary. Thus, Claimant argues, his property has effectively been confiscated, and he is entitled to a replacement.

The Court is sympathetic to the plight of a prisoner, especially one who is indigent, when it comes to losing personal property due to the negligence of another party. However, we have consistently declined to follow the holdings in Hamilton and Seats insofar as they purport to lay down any blanket rule requiring full replacement of lost property. See Smith v. State; Parker v. State, 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 378 (2000); Dean v. State, 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 387 (1999); James v. State, 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 326 (1998), Olson v. State, 46 Ill.Ct.Cl. 277 (1994); et al.

Instead we have opted for a case-by-case approach that fully considers the nature and type of property at issue, the circumstances surrounding the loss of said property, the level of negligence exhibited by the Respondent, the goodwill exhibited by the Respondent in the grievance process, and the Claimant's own conduct, if any, in creating the situation that led to the loss.

Here, the Court finds that the Respondent admitted liability and followed established guidelines through its grievance procedure to apply reasonable depreciation considering the age and types of clothing at issue. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent is not liable to the Claimant for additional damages.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Claimant's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.