Harold Stanford v. State of Illinois

OPINION

BURNS, J. This case comes before the Court on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. The Claimant filed a Motion for an Extension of Time in which to file a response, which the Court granted, but the Claimant did not file a response. The Court having read the pleadings and being fully advised in the premises, finds:

Facts

On April 12, 2011, the Claimant, a former prisoner, filed this complaint sounding in tort against the Respondent, the State of Illinois (via the Illinois Department of Corrections, or "IDOC"). The Complaint alleges that the Respondent wrongfully detained the Claimant, then in IDOC's custody, for 261 days beyond his mandatory supervised release (MSR) date.1 The Claimant seeks $100,000 in compensation for loss of freedom and fear and nervousness as a result of the alleged wrongful detention.

[*143] In his Complaint, the Claimant alleges that on March 22, 2002, the Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois, sentenced the Claimant to two consecutive four-year terms but failed to specify an MSR for which he would have to serve beyond his actual prison term. As a result, the Claimant alleges, the DOC unilaterally imposed an MSR of five years. The Claimant alleges that his MSR should have been two years, and thus he was wrongfully detained from July 21, 2010, until December 29, 2010.

The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, pointing out that at the time the Claimant's MSR was calculated, the statute called for a five-year MSR term for the offenses for which the Claimant had been convicted. The Respondent asserts that as soon as the Respondent received an amended MSR sentencing order from the Circuit Court regarding the Claimant, specifying a term of two years, the Respondent immediately released the Claimant from custody. The Respondent argues, therefore, that it cannot be held liable for any extended detainment the Claimant might have suffered.

Analysis

This Court has held that a tort claim against IDOC for wrongfully extending incarceration beyond the legal release date may be brought under separate theories of false imprisonment or negligent incarceration. Evans v. State, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 395, 397-398 (2002). The Claimant here does not specifically plead either type, but the Court will address each theory.

In order to state a claim for false imprisonment, the Claimant must show that the Respondent caused the Claimant's extended prison confinement, that the confinement was against the Claimant's will, and that the Respondent acted intentionally and without having reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant should be further confined. Patton v. State, 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 174, 179 (1994) (overruled in part on other grounds). See Gee v. State, 21 Ill.Ct.Cl. 573, 577 (1954) (State not liable for tort of false imprisonment when properly enforced a sentencing order); see also Evans v. State, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 395, 398 (2002) (no basis for holding IDOC liable, even indirectly, for a sentencing error in a court order).

In the instant case, the Claimant cannot show that the Respondent lacked reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant should have been further confined. As the Respondent points out in its motion to dismiss, the statute in effect at the time of Claimant's original sentencing required defendants in the same category as the Claimant to serve a mandatory MSR term of five years. See 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1 (d)(4). The Respondent, therefore, reasonably applied an MSR of five years to the Claimant's term. It was not until December 29, 2010, when the Respondent received an amended sentencing order from the Circuit Court of LaSalle County stating the Claimant's MSR should have been two years, that the Respondent had any reason to believe the Claimant should no longer be detained. At that point the Respondent acted promptly to release the Claimant from custody.

Importantly, the Claimant's Complaint does not allege that the Claimant ever filed a grievance or otherwise challenged IDOC's unilateral imposition of the five-year MSR prior to November 10, 2010. On that date, the Claimant received a copy of a letter from IDOC to the LaSalle County State's Attorney seeking review of the five-year MSR imposed on the Claimant.

According to the exhibits attached to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, IDOC initiated the review on its own after learning of an Illinois Appellate Court ruling that called into the [*144] question the legality of five-year MSRs to certain defendants. Until then, the Respondent would have had no reason to believe the five-year MSR term did not apply. The Claimant, therefore, does not plead any facts to show the Respondent acted unreasonably in this matter.

Accordingly, the Claimant has failed to allege one of the necessary elements to state a cause of action for false imprisonment.

As for a claim for negligent incarceration, the Claimant's complaint falls short as well. To prevail in a suit for negligence, a Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent breached its duty of care and the negligence of Respondent was the proximate cause of Claimant's injury. Henderson v. State, 53 Ill.Ct.Cl. 193, 197 (2001). Claimant must also prove that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the injury. Id. Here, then, the Claimant must show that the Respondent knew or should have known of the sentencing error leading to the Claimant's prolonged detention and failed to exercise adequate care to investigate and correct the error.

In Evans v. State, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 395 (2002), the Court faced a negligent incarceration claim from an inmate seeking compensation for having been detained 58 days beyond his correct release date. There, the Court refused to find that IDOC knew or should have known of the error, even though the claimant had complained to a counselor that the original release date did not match his own calculations. Id. at 398. While the Evans court eventually did award $900 in compensation to the claimant, it did so only based on its finding that IDOC negligently continued to hold the claimant for up to 12 days after having received the final corrected mittimus from the circuit court. Id. at 399.

In the instant case, the Claimant does not claim that the Respondent kept him detained after December 29, 2010, when it received the corrected court order. Nor has Claimant pleaded any facts to show that the Respondent knew or should have known that its imposition of a fiveyear MSR was incorrect. The Court, therefore, cannot say that the Respondent here was on notice to the error. Without notice, the Respondent cannot be held liable for negligence.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Claimant's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.