William Evans v. State of Illinois

OPINION

Birnbaum, J.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a recommendation from the assigned Commissioner following an evidentiary hearing held on November 18, 2011.

Claimant

seeks $100,000.00 in compensation for being deprived of a religiously based vegan diet that allegedly he contracted for while incarcerated.

Nature of the Claim

At the hearing before the Commissioner, Claimant testified that between the years of 2007 and 2008, he was in custody at the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”).

While awaiting his court proceedings, Claimant was transferred from Pickneyville to Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”), before returning to Pinckneyville.

Spiritually, Claimant identifies as an African American Hebrew Israelite, a faith that encourages it followers to abide to a vegan diet.

Prior to receiving a religious diet, inmates whose religious beliefs require them to abstain from the consumption of specific foods must seek written permission from a chaplain pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Code.

Rule 20 Ill. Adm. Code 435.70(d).

In a Memorandum dated April 25, 2007, Claimant was granted his vegan diet request from the Chaplain at Pinckneyville, and subsequently began receiving vegan meals.

Shortly after receiving his vegan meals at Pickneyville, Claimant was transferred to Stateville where he did not receive vegan meals during the transport, nor during his [*208] temporary stay while awaiting his court date.

Although Claimant was aware of the administrative procedures for requesting vegan meals, he failed to speak or cooperate with Stateville correctional employees during his stay or transport.

Upon returning to Pickneyville, Claimant testified he was temporarily denied his vegan diet until he reminded the staff of his dietary needs.

At the hearing, Respondent called Dan Stevenson, a Corrections Food Services Supervisor from Pinckneyville.

Mr. Stevens testified that inmates on a religious diet list are removed from the list when transferred out of Pickneyville.

Additionally, he testified that any additions or removals from the list are only made on the first day of any given month in order to adequately plan for all of the inmates’ dietary needs while preventing inefficiency or waste within IDOC.

As Claimant was transferred to Stateville, Mr. Stevenson removed Claimant’s name from the religious diet list.

Following Claimant’s return to Pickneyville, Mr. Stevenson instructed a guard to inform Claimant of the procedure for obtaining a place on the religious diet list.

As Claimant had previously completed the written permission procedure prior to his transfer, Mr. Stevenson immediately replaced Claimant’s name on the religious diet list.

Additionally, Respondent presented evidence of Pickneyville’s guidelines and procedures for inmates requiring special diet for religious reasons.

The

procedures detailed that the written permission from a chaplain is a formal request, not a contract, pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Code.

Rule 20 Ill. Adm. Code 425.70(d).

Analysis

Previous Illinois precedent has supported the principle that Illinois Correctional Centers must accommodate inmates’ religious-based request for non-meat diets pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 800-801 (7th Cir. 2008); Moro v. Winsor, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82525 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2008).

However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain questions of federal law under section 505/8 as the Court of Claims is created by Illinois statute and only has limited jurisdiction on matters enumerated by the General Assembly.

Furthermore, Claimant brings this cause of action under a breach of contract claim.

To succeed on a breach of contract claim, the evidence must show: 1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract; 2) substantial performance by Claimant; 3) a breach by Respondent; and 4) resulting damages. Wagner v. State, 60 Ill. Ct. Cl. 248, 253 (2008).

Only a duty imposed by the terms of a contract can give rise to a breach.

W.W. Vincent and Company, et al. v. First Colony Life insurance Co., 351 Ill. App. 3d 752, 759, 814 .E. 2d 960, 967, 286 Ill. Dec. 734 (1st Dist. 2004).

In this case, Claimant alleges the statutory permission to request a religious diet pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Code creates a contractual right that was breached by the Illinois Department of Corrections.

However, the Pickneyville religious diet list and the April 25, 2007 Memorandum from the Pickneyville Chaplain fail to meet the requirements of a contract between the parties.

Therefore, the documents did not impose a legal obligation of performance.

Additionally, it is a well-accepted principle of law that a contract must be supported by adequate consideration moving in the direction of each of the parties to the agreement.

Claiborne v. State, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 176 (1987).

In this case, no such consideration passed between the parties.

Furthermore, this Court has previously found that the State’s statutory obligation to provide a service does not create enforceable contractual rights in the recipients.

Gendel v. State, 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 76 (1982).

[*209] Specifically, the periods where Claimant failed to receive his vegan meals at Pickneyville were clearly instances when Claimant had returned from Stateville after an extended transfer awaiting court proceedings.

The record shows that once Claimant alerted the food supervisors to his previous status on the religious diet list, the requested vegan meals were provided.

Claimant testified that he was never denied vegan meals for longer than a few weeks.

This short administrative delay was in accordance to Pickneyville’s policy of only updating the religious meal list on the first of any given month in order to properly plan the needs of all inmates.

Thus, this Court finds that Claimant failed to show that a contract existed between himself and the Illinois Department of Corrections.

Further, the record clearly indicates Claimant’s dietary needs were supported when he chose to follow the proper procedures established by Pinkneyville Correctional Center.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this claim is DENIED.

ORDER

This Cause coming on for hearing on Claimant’s Motion Requesting Relief from Judgment and Reconsideration and Respondent’s Response thereto, and this Court being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant’s Motion Requesting Relief from Judgment and Reconsideration be DENIED for Claimant’s failure to provide adequate justification to reinstate his claim.