Herman Williams v. State of Illinois

OPINION

GAGLIARDO, J.

The claim is before the Court by way of evidentiary rehearing conducted October 5, 2018 before Commissioner Jacksack utilizing video teleconferencing. Claimant, Herman Williams, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (“DOC”), resided at Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”) at all times relevant to this claim. Claimant alleges Respondent's agents improperly confiscated certain property from Claimant's legal boxes during a shakedown on October 24, 2011. Claimant filed a grievance, which was denied, and appealed the decision to the Administrative Review Board (ARB), which also denied his claim. Claimant filed his Complaint, dated January 11, 2013, alleging $4,000.00 in damages. A hearing was held July 12, 2013. Following the hearing, Claimant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was denied, but a new hearing was ordered. This rehearing followed.

CLAIMANT'S TESTIMONY

Claimant testified that on October 24, 2011, he sought access to his legal property boxes at the Stateville law library, which was the location where legal boxes were kept at that time. Claimant noticed that one legal box was missing and additional legal material was missing from his other legal boxes. Claimant inquired as to his missing legal property box and missing legal property and was provided with a shakedown slip that indicated several religious pamphlets and personal papers had been confiscated and destroyed. Claimant had not been previously notified of the shakedown or given the opportunity to choose whether to have any property deemed contraband sent home or destroyed.

Claimant testified as to various documents he owned that were kept in his legal boxes. He also testified regarding the procedure of inmates’ gaining access to their legal documents - via requesting access from the Respondent at the law library - and to the fact that the Respondent kept legal boxes locked up when the inmate owners were not accessing their respective legal boxes.

Claimant details his missing property as including legal books, such as his legal dictionary and criminal law-related books, as well as various legal papers including some documents that are not innately legal but are required for his executive clemency petition. These include transcripts and other materials related to his religion-based correspondence classes, his [*98] high school diploma, and more. In addition to his executive clemency petition, Claimant had another appeal pending.

Respondent called no witnesses.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Respondent filed a Combined Rule 55 Discovery Disclosure/Departmental Report. Claimant's complaint and all exhibits, and all supplemental filings, are also added to the record.

ARGUMENT

Claimant argued that his legal boxes were in both sole possession and secure control of Respondent, creating a bailment. It was while the legal boxes were in Respondent's sole control that the shakedown occurred.

Claimant acknowledges the Respondent is permitted to conduct a shakedown of Claimant's legal boxes at any time. Claimant argues however, that the officer conducting the shakedown erred in confiscating legal documents that she erroneously believed to be religious pamphlets - likely transcripts of religion-related courses Claimant had completed - and that such transcripts and other similar documents are legal documents as they were part of Claimant's legal claim for executive clemency. Claimant further argued that Respondent violated its own rules in two ways. First, per DOC rules, if contraband is found during a shakedown, the employee shall provide as much information on the left side of the shakedown slip as known or available. Claimant argues the limited, general phrases used by Respondent on the shakedown slip are noncompliant. Second, per D.R. 501.230, if contraband of the type at issue here is found, it is to be confiscated, marked, and placed in a secure area, and that the Claimant is to be provided with the choice to have the property sent home or destroyed. Claimant argues he was not provided with those options but rather his property deemed contraband was immediately destroyed.

Respondent argues that the shakedown slip has limited space to list contraband found and that a number of items at issue were indeed listed in the limited space provided. Respondent further argues that Claimant has the burden of proving the value of his property for damages to be awarded and that Claimant did not attach official documentation of the values of any property to his original complaint. Lastly, Respondent argues that the amount of property Claimant is claiming was erroneously confiscated could not have fit into one property box.

Claimant responds by arguing that he had multiple legal property boxes to easily fit all the legal property at issue and more. Claimant clarifies that only one legal box went completely missing and the others were missing property. Claimant further contends that while the officer conducting the shakedown may have genuinely thought certain documents were religious pamphlets and papers - and thus did not belong in Claimant's legal property boxes - that if the officer had followed procedure and set aside these documents, Claimant could have proven their legal nature or sent them home. Claimant concedes he no longer haS the invoices for the books he purchased, as he follows the unofficial policy of taping a book’s invoice to its inside cover so that during a shakedown, it is apparent the inmate owns the book and eliminates the risk that the [*99] book is presumed stolen from the law library. Thus, when Claimant's books were confiscated, he also lost his proof of ownership.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The first issue is whether Claimant actually owned the property at issue and the second is whether a bailment was created. Claimant bears the burden of proof for both issues. Claimant filed a detailed list of the property he alleges was confiscated, along with values for each. He testified as to additional specifics of various items, including his religion-related classes and his high school transcript from a high school that has since closed.

Respondent argues that Claimant has not met his burden of proof of ownership, but offered no evidence of its own to rebut Claimant's testimony regarding ownership. Under Rule 55(b)(1)(B) of this Court, the Respondent shall provide “any personal property inventory sheets and property permits or contracts that tend to prove or disprove ownership of the property in question.” 74 Ill. Admin. Code §790.55(b)(1)(B). The Departmental Report for this case did not include any of this documentation. It is possible these do not exist.

The Court now turns to look at other evidence that tends to prove or disprove Claimant's ownership of the property at issue. The shakedown slip, while not completely legible, lists various property including three books, 52 cards, 28 pictures, and 3 letters that were sent to personal property. The shakedown slip also reports the finding, seizure, and destruction of religious pamphlets and personal papers. This corroborates Claimant's testimony as to the ownership of at least some of the property claimed. The responses to Claimant's grievance also corroborate the existence of at least some property in legal boxes. Thus, Respondent has failed to rebut any of Claimant's testimony regarding the property he kept in his legal boxes and the evidence we have from Respondent's Departmental Report at least partially corroborates Claimant's testimony.

The next issue is whether a bailment was created. Where the Respondent state institution takes exclusive control on the inmate’s property, a bailment is created. Arsbery v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 127 (1978). While the Respondent has possession of the bailed property, loss of the property raises the presumption of negligence that the Respondent must rebut by evidence of due care. Id at 129. Claimant testified as to the procedures surrounding inmates’ keeping legal property in their legal property boxes, which are kept locked up by the Respondent. Respondent does not dispute that a bailment was created of the legal box(es), only as to what specific property Claimant had in them and the value of the property. This Court finds that a bailment was created.

The parties agree that a shakedown occurred. The parties also agree that Respondent is permitted to shakedown inmates’ legal boxes and there is no allegation that a shakedown, in itself, is a violation of due care. Rather, the parties dispute whether the seizing of the particular property was appropriate and whether the handling of the property seized in the shakedown was a conversion of the bailed property.

[*100] It is well established that this Court will not act as a reviewing tribunal of the administration of regulations at corrections institutions, but for when violation of such rules is otherwise indicative of a tort. Lisle v. State of Illinois, 61 Ill. Ct. Cl. 290, 292 (2007) (additional cites omitted). Here, if the Stateville officer conducting the shakedown determined that certain documents were non-legal and deemed them contraband, this Court will not interfere with that determination.

However, DOC rules as to the handling of contraband must be followed. Religious pamphlets and other personal papers are not innately contraband under DOC rules. 20 Ill. Admin. Code §501.230 (a) and (b). Rather, when kept at an inappropriate location, they are considered excess property, and the handling of them is governed by §501.230(c). 20 Ill. Admin. Code §501.230(c). Accordingly, Claimant should have been given an opportunity to ship the property at issue out of Stateville or elect to have the documents destroyed. Claimant testified that he was not presented with this opportunity. The shakedown slip submitted as part of Respondent's Departmental Report states that various documents seized in the shakedown were immediately destroyed. This is corroborated in the responses to Claimant's grievance. This Court finds that Claimant should have been provided the opportunity to elect the disposal method of his documents and was not provided that opportunity. By failing to follow its own rules, the State can be held liable for the loss of Claimant's property. See Lindsey v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 121 (1989).

Claimant testified as to the loss of several books. The shakedown slip addresses only three books - a 12 step book and two others, whose titles are not fully legible but do not match the titles of books listed by Claimant in his claim. Respondent could have submitted a personal property inventory sheet of Claimant's property that could have proven or disproven the ownership of the books claimed by Claimant but did not do so, arguing only that Claimant has failed to submit independent evidence of the value of his missing property. It is true that Claimant bears the burden of proving damages in order to prevail. Harris v. State, 41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 184, 188 (1989). However, we have previously found that an inmate’s testimony can establish the value of property. Seats v. State, 46 Ill. Ct. Cl. 418, 420 (1994). This seems to be such a circumstance where this is appropriate. Here, Claimant testified that he requested a personal property inventory sheet and was denied. His testimony as to the ownership of this property is unrebutted. This Court finds Claimant's testimony credible, bolstered in part by the documents that we do have at least partially corroborating Claimant's testimony, and never undermining it.

Claimant sets out the replacement cost of each of his books. These total $1,062.90. Respondent did not dispute these amounts. In awarding damages, depreciation is appropriate. The shakedown occurred on October 24, 2011. Included in the law books lost are: Illinois Criminal Law & Procedure - 1993, Illinois Criminal Law & Procedure - 2008, and Illinois Criminal Law Decisions - 2009, as well as a legal dictionary and others. Claimant did not provide either publication dates or dates of purchase for the other books, but depreciation is still appropriate. This Court finds depreciation results in an appropriate award of $744.03 for the books.

Claimant also sets out estimated costs of various other missing documents, including transcripts, coursework-related documents and Claimant's executive clemency file. While the [*101] shakedown slip substantiates Claimant's claim that this material was destroyed, Claimant has failed to introduce evidence as to the replacement costs other than offering unsupported, round number estimates. For example, he introduced no documentation from any Clerk of the Court’s Office as to the cost of replacing his specific legal transcripts. He introduced no letter from the relevant school district as to the cost of securing a replacement high school diploma from the school district where his now-closed school was located, nor proof of the replacement cost for a transcript of his religion-based classes. As Claimant has the burden of proving the value of damages, these ballpark estimates cannot be awarded and are denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent compensate Claimant $744.03 for his missing legal books.