Eddie Williams v. State of Illinois

OPINION

SPRAGUE, J.

The claim is before the Court by way of evidentiary hearing conducted November 2, 2023, before Commissioner Jacksack utilizing video teleconferencing. Claimant, Eddie Williams, is 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 lost or otherwise improperly disposed of his personal property resulting in a conversion. Claimant filed his complaint, dated April 2, 2020, alleging $100.00 in damages.

Claimant’s Testimony

Claimant testified that he purchased a gold necklace and cross from Sunshine Jewelry Company that was shipped to Stateville. Stateville staff signed for the delivery but Claimant never received the jewelry. Claimant inquired of Stateville staff as to the jewelry, and was informed it had not been delivered. Claimant sought a refund from Sunshine Jewelry Company, who provided proof of delivery from the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), including signature confirmation, of the package to Stateville.

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 argues that his cross and necklace were in the possession and control of Respondent when the loss occurred, and therefore seeks damages from Stateville.

Respondent argues that although the jewelry was received by Stateville, it was returned to Sunshine Jewelry Company as the total of the chain and cross was over the $50 limit set by Stateville for outside deliveries.

Legal Analysis

The first issue is whether Claimant actually owned the property at issue and the second is whether bailment was created. Claimant bears the burden of proof for both [*260] issues. Claimant testified as to the purchase of the cross and necklace from Sunshine Jewelry Company, and the purchase is evidenced from his commissary purchase records filed as part of the Departmental Report. The purchase was not disputed by Respondent.

Where the Respondent state institution takes exclusive control of the inmates 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 property raises the presumption of negligence that the Respondent must rebut by evidence of due care. Id at 129. This Court a considered a similar claim in Flowers v. State of Illinois, 42 Ill. Ct. Cl. 263 (1989), where an inmate alleged the delivery of a gold chain had been made to his DOC institution but he never received the chain. The material difference here is the proof of delivery. In Flowers, the inmate offered no evidence of delivery other than his own selfserving hearsay testimony. Id at 264. The Commissioner continued the hearing to allow the claimant to introduce the postal tracking evidence he claimed to have, but the claimant did not do so. Id at 265. Under such facts, we found the claimant had no established a bailment. Id at 265-66. Here, we have proof of delivery from the USPS, which was filed by Claimant as part of his complaint and also included in the Departmental Report. The proof of delivery shows an individual at Stateville signed for the package at issue from Sunshine Jewelry, that the proof of delivery was requested by Sunshine Jewelry, and that Sunshine Jewelry had sent the package to Stateville with tracking. We also note one of the responses to Claimant’s grievance on this issue reflects that Officer Mitchell recalled receiving the item at Stateville. Under these facts, we find that a bailment was created.

The burden then shifts to Respondent to show evidence of due care of Claimant’s jewelry. Claimant’s cross and necklace together cost $68.95. Respondent relies upon the grievance response indicating that although Officer Mitchell received Claimant’s jewelry, he subsequently returned it as it exceeded Stateville’s $50.00 limit.10 It is wellestablished that this Court will not act as a reviewing tribunal of the administration of regulations at corrections, but for when violation of such rules is otherwise indicative of a tort. Lisle v. State of Illinois, 61 Ill. Ct. Cl. 290, 292 (2009)(additional cites omitted). Here, if the Stateville officer deemed the jewelry contraband, this Court will not disturb that ruling.

However, DOC rules as to the handling of contraband must be followed. Jewelry valued at over $50.00 is not innately contraband under the Illinois Administrative Code. 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 501.230(a) and (b). Rather, if deemed unauthorized property by Stateville, the handling of the property 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 out of Stateville or have the property destroyed. By failing its own rules, as occurred here, the State can be held liable for the loss of Claimant’s property. See Lindsey v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 121 (1989).

Additionally, as a practical matter, if Stateville determined on its own to ship Claimant’s jewelry back to Sunshine Jewelry, due care would require some record of this shipment. Respondent provided no proof of mailing or even any internal Stateville

Stateville’s rules setting such limit were not offered into evidence, but Claimant did not dispute this dollar limit, which the Chief Administrative Officer could set per 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 535.60.

[*261] record. The only shipping record before this Court is the USPS proof of delivery of Claimant’s items to Stateville. Accordingly, the Court finds Respondent has not rebutted the presumption of negligence and Respondent has liability for the loss of Claimant’s cross and chain.

Claimant bears the burden of proof of damages. Harris v. State, 41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 184, 188 (1989). Claimant’s commissary records establish the purchase price of $68.95 for the cross and chain and the Court awards this amount. Claimant offered no evidence or argument as to any damages other than the purchase price, and the additional $31.05 sought is denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent compensate Claimant $68.95 for his missing jewelry items.