HERMAN MITCHELL, Claimant, v . THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent .

Case summary

The claimant, an inmate, was attacked by other inmates after wandering from a shower area. The court held that the state was not responsible for the criminal acts of third parties and that the claimant's own actions led to the injuries. The claim was denied and dismissed with prejudice.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

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

Headnotes

PRISONERS AND INMATES-inmate beaten by other inmaies-illmute facilitated beating-claim denied. Where the evidence showed that the Claimant, an inmate of a correctional center, left a shower area where he was instructed to remain, went to the area where another inmate with whom he had previously argued was celled, and he was then beaten and stabbed by other inmates, the injured inmate’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice, since the State was not liable for the criminal acts of third parties under such circumstances, especially where the Claimant facilitated the beating by disobeying orders to remain in the shower area.

HERMAN MITCHELL, pro se, for Claimant. NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (JOHN BUCKLEY, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

BURKE, J.

This cause coming to be heard upon the report of the Commissioner, after hearing before said Commissioner, and this Court being fully advised in the premises . finds that on July 12, 1985, Claimant, Herman Mitchell, was an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. On that date, Claimant was removed handcuffed from his cell for the purpose of taking a shower. The officer that accompanied Claimant to the shower ‘area left Claimant to exchange keys. While the guard was gone, Claimant left the shower area and moved to an area where an inmate was in a cell. Claimant and the inmate had argued earlier. Claimant was injured at the hands of other inmates who attacked him, stabbed him with a knife and threw hot liquids on his body.

Respondent is not responsible for criminal acts of third parties under circumstances such as presented in the case at bar. Claimant’s testimony and the depart[*125]mental report clearly demonstrate that Claimant’s action in wandering from the shower area where he was instructed to remain by the prison guard was the fact or circumstances which facilitated and allowed Claimant to sustain apparent injury at the hands of other inmates.

It is therefore ordered that this claim is denied and Claimant’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.