Chad Combs v. State of Illinois

OPINION

STORINO, J.

This claim is before the Court upon a recommendation from the assigned commissioner following an evidentiary hearing. Claimant, Chad Combs, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, brings this action against the State of Illinois for damages resulting from his wrongful confinement in segregation for 90 days.

FACTS

On January 18, 2012, Claimant Chad Combs, then an inmate at Graham Correctional Facility ("GCF") was placed in segregation under investigative status after he was caught attempting to have his wife Angela bring contraband chewing tobacco into the facility. GCF staff searched his cell later that day and found a plastic bag containing about 20 grams of contraband tobacco. On January 26, 2012, GCF issued him a ticket (disciplinary report 201200251) for the incident with his wife and he was charged with violating DR 601 (Aiding and Abetting, Attempt, Solicitation, or Conspiracy); DR 310 (Abuse of Privileges); and DR 308 (Contraband/Unauthorized Property). On January 27, 2012, GCF issued him a second ticket (disciplinary report 201200262) for the tobacco found in his cell, charging him with violating DR 308 (Contraband/Unauthorized Property).

Claimant pled guilty to both tickets in front of the Adjustment Committee on January 31, 2012. However, he argued that both tickets were related to the same incident and he requested that ticket 201200251 be thrown out, the sanctions be reduced, or that the sanctions for both tickets run concurrently. The Adjustment Committee (the "Committee") recommended that Claimant receive the following punishment for ticket 201200251: 3 months C Grade, 3 months segregation placement, 3 months Good Conduct Credit ("GCC") revoked, disciplinary transfer, 3 months [*144] commissary restriction, and 3 months gym/yard restriction. In regards to ticket 201200262, the Committee recommended 3 months B Grade, 3 months segregation placement, 3 months GCC revoked, 3 months commissary restriction, and 3 months gym/yard restriction. The sanctions for each ticket were to run consecutively.

On February 2, 2012, Claimant filed a grievance requesting that ticket 201200251 be thrown out, that the sanctions be reduced, or that the sanctions for both tickets run concurrently with one another. On February 8, 2012, a Grievance Officer's Report was issued denying Claimant's grievance. The Chief Administrative Officer concurred with this decision on February 14, 2012. On February 15, 2012, Claimant was transferred to Pinckneyville Correctional Center, and on February 23, 2012, he filed a grievance with the Administrative Review Board, Office of Inmate Issues, again requesting the same relief.

On June 27, 2012, the Chairperson of the Administrative Review Board recommended that based on DR 504, Claimant's grievance should be affirmed and that the sanctions imposed for both tickets should be imposed concurrently, not consecutively. She further stated that, "due to this action this office recommends that one month of good conduct credit previously revoked for disciplinary report 201200251 is to be restored to

Offender Combs."

Notwithstanding this recommendation, Claimant was still released from segregation on July 18, 2012, and removed from gym/yard restriction on July 31, 2012. Claimant argues that the restoration of one month GCC was not sufficient compensation for the extra time he spent in segregation. He alleges that during the impermissible second three month segregation period he missed calling his son and daughter on their birthdays, he did not have access to his family or reading materials, he was denied access to the commissary and exercise, he was only allowed to shower once a week, and as a result suffered depression, back pain, and shoulder pains. He also alleges that he still has anxiety regarding crowded spaces as a result of his time in segregation.

After a hearing on the matter, the Attorney General's office agreed that Claimant's 90 day segregation period was in violation of Department of Correction rules. The only issue before this Court, then, is the amount of damages to award Claimant for his wrongful segregation of 90 days.

ANALYSIS

Claimant and Respondent agree that in wrongful segregation cases, this Court has held that the inmate is entitled to the lost unassigned rate of pay, which is $10.00 per month. Thus, Claimant is entitled to $30.00 of lost unassigned pay for the extra three months he was in segregation. However, as Respondent notes in its argument, this Court has also awarded damages in addition to unassigned rate of pay in wrongful segregation cases.

In Oliver v. State, 54 Ill.Ct.Cl. 444 (2002), a case Respondent cites in its Response, this Court found that Respondent was negligent by failing to follow its own rules regarding implementation of the claimant's segregation and awarded the claimant an additional $55.00 in damages stemming from eighteen days of wrongful segregation. The claimant in [*145] Oliver had received his unassigned rate of pay for the eighteen extra days, but sought additional compensation at the rate of $125.00 per day for damages related to: (a) denial of bible study/church service, (b) denial of showers with hot water, (c) mental duress and anguish, (d) his family's refusal to visit because of the conditions of visitation during segregation, (e) denial of telephone calls to his family and friends, (f) denial of yard/gym recreation period, (g) denial of access to dining room for hot meals, (h) denial of access to adequate law library services, and (i) and being subjected to high noise levels and twenty-four hours of light.

This Court in Oliver found the claimant suffered from being restricted in his movements and enjoyment of privileges otherwise available to inmates in general population while in segregation and that he was entitled to damages additional to the lost unassigned rate of pay because, “[i]f DOC intends to punish with segregation placement, then it must be presumed that wrongful segregation placement causes damages." Id. at 447. However, this Court also found that the claimant failed to actually prove mental duress and anguish or any of the other rationale for alleged damages. Based on what little was in the Record, this Court awarded him fair damages of $ 55.00.

In the instant case, Claimant was wrongfully segregated for seventy-two more days than the claimant in Oliver. Thus, comparing Oliver and the instant case and setting a $3.06 per diem (the rate set in Oliver), Claimant is entitled to at least $275.40. However, the two cases are not equal. In the present case, there is evidence in the record to support some of Claimant's allegations of damages in contrast to the claimant in Oliver. Documents in the record specify that Claimant was denied gym/yard access and commissary access during the wrongful 90 day segregation.

The Court finds that Claimant suffered some restriction in access to exercise and to the use of the commissary during his wrongful 90 days of segregation and that $450.00 is fair compensation for these damages. Accordingly, Claimant's claim is hereby granted, and Respondent is ordered to pay Claimant $450.00 in damages for wrongful segregation and $30.00 for lost monthly unassigned wages.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant is awarded $480.00.