Willie B. Hadley v. State of Illinois — 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 180

WILLIE B. HADLEY, Claimant, u: THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. I

Case summary

Claimant, an inmate, sought prisoner pay that was withheld during disciplinary segregation, alleging another inmate received such pay under similar circumstances. The court denied the claim because the other inmate's pay was reinstated only after his disciplinary ticket was expunged, and claimant's ticket was not expunged.

Claim type: Other

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

PRISONERS A N D INMATES-“Pl’iSOnt?? pay’’ withheld during disciplinary

WILLIE B. HADLEY, pro se, for Claimant. j NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (SUEMUELLER, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent. IPRISONERS AND INMATES-“Pl’iSOnt?? pay’’ withheld during disciplinary segregation-claim denied. Inmate’s claim for “prisoner pay” which he did ‘I not receive while in segregation at Menard Correctional Center was denied as institutional policy required that “prisoner pay” be withheld during I periods of disciplinary segregation.

POCH,J.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois correctional institution brought suit against Respondent for “prisoner’s pay” of which Claimant was deprived while he was in disciplinary segregation, at Menard Correctional Center.

A hearing was held before a Commissioner of this Court.

Claimant’s case rests on the theory that another inmate, one Wilson, who was housed in disciplinary segregation with Claimant at Menard Correctional Center, was paid “prisoner pay” while in disciplinary segregation and that, according to the policy of Menard Correctional Center, Claimant did not receive comparable “prisoner pay” while in circumstances identical to that of the inmate who did in fact receive “prisoner pay” for the same period of time.

The record in this cause establishes that institutional policy covering inmates subject to disciplinary segregation requires that their normal “prisoner pay” be withheld during periods of disciplinary segregation. The [*1] i

I. 181

i record further demonstrates that the inmate in question, 1 who apparently received “prisoner pay” for time spent in disciplinary segregation, received the pay as a result

I

I of the fact that the “ticket” pursuant to which that

I

inmate was incarcerated in disciplinary segregation had ~ been “expunged.” The record further conclusively demonstrates that in such an incident, in accordance with institutional policy, the inmate’s “prisoner pay” was

I

reinstated and was paid to him for the period of time that the inmate was incarcerated in disciplinary i segregation on the ticket that was later expunged.

I. Under these circumstances, Claimant’s proof supports no theory of recovery against Respondent.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that this i claim hereby be denied.