Richard West v. State of Illinois

OPINION

SPRAGUE, J. This claim is before the Court upon a recommendation from Commissioner George Argionis following an evidentiary hearing.

FACTS

The Claimant, Richard West, brings this claim against the State of Illinois to recover damages he claims to have suffered while incarcerated in Pontiac Correctional Center.

Claimant alleges that the State of Illinois was negligent in providing ventilation to his cell pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/3-7-3. Claimant also alleges that the officers were negligent in providing Claimant with medical care immediately following the discharge of pepper spray.

[*148] On August 9, 2011, two inmates were given orders by correctional officers. The inmates refused to follow the direct orders, and after multiple warnings were sprayed with bursts of pepper spray into their cells. These inmates were housed two and three cells away from Claimant. Claimant alleges that due to lack of proper ventilation in his cell, the lack of fans, and the correctional officers' failure to open windows he suffered injuries for two hours after the incident. Claimant alleges that a similar incident occurred on August 23, 2011, and on neither date was he examined by a medical professional.

On August 29, 2011, Claimant filed a grievance and the Illinois Department of Corrections determined that both incidents were handled according to procedure. The Illinois Department of Corrections found that protocol was followed, the pepper spray was limited to the offenders' cells, and medical technicians were available if needed. Additionally, the Illinois Department of Corrections found that ventilation fans were used and the windows were opened. Multiple correctional officers filed incident reports for both incident dates stating that the offenders did not follow direct orders, they were subsequently sprayed with pepper spray, and the proper protocol was followed. After the investigation the grievance was denied. Additionally, Claimant did not seek medical treatment after the incident and there is no documentation showing Claimant sought treatment.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In order to prevail in a negligence claim for personal injuries, the Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the State had a duty to protect him from harm, that the State negligently breached that duty, and that the negligence was the proximate cause of the Claimant's injury. Although the State owes a duty of protection to prisoners and must exercise such reasonable care toward them as their known conditions require, the State is not an insurer of the safety of prisoners under its care. Lemes v. State, 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 400,404 (2000). The State owes a duty to provide inmates with reasonable medical care. Dye v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 452,455 (1995). What is reasonable under the circumstances will necessarily vary from case to case. Faircloth v. State, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 275, 280 (2002).

Reasonableness must be judged in view of the The Illinois Administrative Code states that force, including the use of chemical agents, may be used to compel compliance with a lawful order given by an employee to ensure the safety and security of the facility. 20 IlI.Adm.Code 501.40(a)(l), 501.60(a)(l).

The committed persons against whom the chemical agent is to be directed shall be warned that the chemical may be used. 20 IlI.Adm.Code 501.60(b). Further, the use should last no longer than necessary to achieve the purpose for which the chemical is being used. 20 IlI.Adm.Code 501.60(e). Incident Reports must be prepared immediately after the use of the chemical agent. 20 IlI.Adm.Code 501.70(e). Complaints challenging the administrative discretion of prison officials fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by the Court of Claims. A prison officer faced with an inmate disturbance is afforded a wide range of discretion as to the force which may be used. Ely v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 61 Ill.Ct.Cl. 245, 248 (2007). Additionally, the total circumstances are to be considered in determining whether an officer's conduct was negligent. Id.

[*149] The correctional officers acted according to protocol set out in the Illinois Administrative Code in the use of pepper spray. The officers have a duty to protect the inmates from harm. In this case, other offenders were a danger to the population and themselves, and were not following direct orders. The officers on duty at the time warned these offenders multiple times prior to the use of the chemical agent, and the use was directed only into the cells of the appropriate offenders. The officers opened the windows, used ventilation fans, and medical technicians were available if needed. Additionally, Claimant testified that there were openings in his cell in the sides of the door, which allegedly would have allowed the chemical agent in and allowed the air to be ventilated upon the opening of the windows. Decisions made regarding the prison officials' administrative discretion fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Here, the correctional officers used their discretion in assessing the situation and what actions to take. The officers followed protocol in their orders towards the offending inmates, and their actions after the incident. Correctional officers are afforded a wide range of discretion in situations such as this, and the Claimant has failed to meet his burden in proving that the officers breached their duty of care.

Additionally, Claimant has not presented evidence to prove his damages by a preponderance of the evidence. A mere statement that these injuries occurred is insufficient.

Dye, 48 Ill.Ct.Cl. at 456. Claimant did not go to the hospital at Stateville for his injuries nor has Claimant presented any documentation of injuries he allegedly sustained. Therefore, Claimant has not met his burden in showing that Respondent breached its duty of care.

Claimant has also not met his burden in proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence.

For these reasons, this claim must be denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Claimant's claim be denied.