Larry Hayes v. Illinois Department of Corrections

OPINION

Sprague, C.J.

This matter comes before the Court on the Complaint of Claimant, Larry Hayes, against

Respondent, State of Illinois, Illinois Department of Corrections, seeking damages from an

injury received in the amount of $100,000.00.

THE FACTS

I. Claimant's Testimony

Claimant, Larry Hayes, testified that on December 19, 2003, he informed the control

officer that he was having problems with his cellmate and requested a transfer. He testified that

he was assured by the control officer that he would be moved out of his cell to a different cell.

Approximately two days later, he inquired again about his moving out of his cell. It was at this [*202]

time that a correctional officer told him that he was going to check into it and that it would be

taken care of in the near future. On December 23, 2003, Claimant testified that he again

inquired about a move. It was at that time that Claimant testified that he informed the

correctional officer that he felt he was in danger of having a serious problem with his cellmate.

On December 24, 2003, the correctional officer came to Claimant and was asked if

Claimant would mind if Claimant moved or his cellmate moved. Claimant stated that he had no

problem with either of those choices. It was later learned by Claimant that the transfer was for

his cellmate to be moved upstairs. When his cellmate began to pack for his move, Claimant

testified that he went outside into the dayroom and sat down. While sitting in the dayroom, a

correctional officer called Claimant on the loud speaker and told him that he had to go back to

his cell because it was not his dayroom time. Claimant testified that he stated that he did not

want to go back to his cell because of the problems he had with his cellmate and he was afraid of

a serious confrontation. Claimant was then ordered to go back to his cell.

When he returned to his cell, Claimant testified that his cellmate elbowed him in the

stomach and knocked his hand down. Claimant testified that he told his cellmate not to touch

him and he turned away. Upon turning away, Claimant testified that his cellmate hit him in the

nose and the jaw. It was at this time that Claimant stated that he blacked out. When he was able

to regain consciousness, Claimant testified that he remembered being on top of his cellmate and

punching him. He then testified that they both stood up and Claimant fell against the wall and

fell out of the door. Claimant testified that he did not remember any of this incident until three

weeks after the fight as he had lost his memory during the incident.

Claimant then testified that his cellmate went upstairs and that he was then taken across

the hall to a cell by other inmates where they cleaned him up. Claimant then stated that he [*203]

returned to his cell but did not remember what occurred. Claimant testified that an officer came

into his cell and asked him what was wrong. Claimant testified that he told the officer that he

did not really remember but stated that he hit the wall and hurt himself. The officer then stated

to Claimant that he was going to be taken to the prison hospital to be checked out. Claimant

testified that when he was in the prison hospital that they came and put him in the hole

(segregation) because they had learned of the confrontation between Claimant and his cellmate.

While he was in segregation, Claimant stated that he complained about his jaw and stated that he thought he had a heart attack. Claimant testified that while he was in the prison hospital, they did give him some medication for his heart and then took him over to the X-ray. After the X-ray, Claimant was told that his jaw was broken. It was during this time that they also took Claimant to internal affairs to question him about the incident.

A couple of days after the incident, Claimant indicated that he was taken into the city for

surgery and it was during the surgery that they put a plate into his jaw. Claimant then testified

that he believed that there was also a disciplinary hearing in which they found him guilty of

fighting. Claimant testified that he was still medicated at the hearing and that he did not recall

that he was found guilty of fighting. Claimant testified that they sentenced him to 30 days of

segregation and 30 days of C grade.

Claimant testified that he learned there were four informers that saw the incident and

explained to the disciplinary committee that Claimant was defending himself after his cellmate

attacked him. Upon learning of the informers, Claimant filed a grievance. Claimant testified

that the grievance committee found him guilty because they said that Claimant was unable to

present a valid defense on his own behalf and his inability to refute the charge of fighting.

Claimant testified that it was not until January 14 or 15, 2004 that he remembered the [*204]

incident. Claimant testified that he served his 30 days of segregation after his jaw operation. It

was not until February that most of his memory came back and that is when he filed his

grievance. Claimant then added that he explained to the correctional officers that he did not

want to go back to his cell because he believed that there would be a problem if he returned

during his cellmate's move. Claimant then stated that because of his physical injuries which

included head lesions, loss of short-term memory, a nose rupture, contusions and a fractured

right mandible bone and had to have his teeth extracted that he requested $150,000.00 in

damages.

Upon cross-examination, Claimant testified that he was in his cell for approximately 9

months and with his cellmate for approximately 2-3 months. Claimant testified that he believed

that he had requested a transfer on December 19 and on December 23, was told that his cellmate

would be transferred. Claimant further testified on cross-examination that while he was in the

bubble a CI called over the loud speaker for him to go back to his cell because it was not his

dayroom time. Claimant testified that immediately upon returning to his cell he was elbowed in

the stomach by this cellmate. Claimant then testified that he was taken to the City and did not

remember the hospital he was taken to but remained in the hospital for a day or two. Claimant

testified that he did not pay for the surgery or any medical costs.

Claimant then requested that all of his documents be admitted into evidence. The

documents were admitted without objection.

II. Respondent's Case

The Assistant Attorney General then made a reference into the investigation contained in the Departmental Report. Specifically, the Assistant Attorney General referred to the Departmental Report which stated that there were two confidential inmates who reported on [*205] what incurred during this incident. The State then requested that the Departmental Report then be admitted into evidence. The Departmental Report was admitted into evidence without objection. The State rested their case with no closing argument.

In closing, the Claimant requested that the Judges look at the two witnesses' statements in the record which indicate that Claimant was defending himself which would prove that he was not guilty and should not have been put in segregation.

THE LAW

Illinois case law is clear that the State of Illinois is not an insurer of the safety of inmates

in its custody, but it does have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent inmates from

suffering harm at the hands of other inmates, and that the determination of what is reasonable

under the circumstances depends on the facts of each case viewed in light of the prison

environment and the discretion which must be accorded prison officials. Factors to be

considered by this Court when determining if there is negligence by the State are the

foreseeability of potential for harm to the Claimant by another inmate. The Claimant must

prove the foreseeability by a preponderance of the evidence. This foreseeability must be judged

by the facts of each case and by taking judicial notice of the prison environment. Petrusak v.

State of Illinois (1987), 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 113. Liability of negligence by the State may be found if

prison officials had actual or constructive notice of trouble with another inmate and Claimant or

the likelihood that Claimant would be targeted as a victim. Smith v. State of Illinois, (1991) 44

Ill. Ct. Cl. 45.

In the case at bar, evidence was presented by Claimant that he informed prison personnel

on numerous occasions of his request to move out of his cell as he believed he fell he was in

danger. Prisoners at Dixon were constructively apprised of the risk of harm to Claimant on at [*206]

least three occasions from the testimony of the Claimant himself. The Department Report which

was entered into evidence on Respondent's behalf, do not rebut this claim. Additionally,

Claimant left his cell when his cellmate was packing to leave and was ordered to return to his

cell even after Claimant testified that he informed the correctional officers of the situation and

his fear of returning to his cell where his cellmate was packing.

It is clear from the evidence presented that Respondent failed to take measures to protect

the Claimant and consequently failed in its duty to provide Claimant with reasonable care in

protecting him from harm. The Respondent did not allow Claimant to stay in the dayroom while

his cellmate was packing to move. Respondent did not take any other measures in protecting

Claimant while his cellmate was in the moving process. The State failed in its duty to use

reasonable care to protect Claimant from harm when they had actual and constructive notice of

the trouble that was to occur. The Claimant Larry Hayes suffered damages in being punched in

the mouth which resulted in him breaking his jaw.

It is hereby ordered that Claimant is awarded the amount of $3,000.00 in full and

complete satisfaction of his claim.