Antoine Sawyer v. State of Illinois

Antoine Sawyer (“Claimant”) filed a Complaint on or about May 2, 2019, against the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Corrections (“State” or “IDOC”) alleging tortious conduct and constitutional violations for wrongfully incarcerating him when he should have been released on parole. On October 28, 2019, this Court dismissed Claimant’s constitutional claims. A hearing on merits was heard by a Commissioner of the Court on July 19, 2022, and a transcript of the proceeding was issued on August 15, 2022.

Facts

In August 2018, Claimant was incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections, specifically the East Moline Correctional Center. Claimant was scheduled to be released on parole on August 17, 2018. In order to be released, Claimant was required to provide a residence that complied with certain requirements for his release as a sexual offender. Claimant proposed multiple locations, including his mother’s home in Chicago, Illinois.

Claimant’s mother’s residence was denied as a parole location, according to IDOC’s records, because of the proximity of the victim of his crime. Based on another record submitted by the Claimant, it was denied because the “victim frequents [the] site.” Claimant testified that he was told that his mother’s home was denied because the victim’s grandmother lived in the area, and the victim frequently visited.

Claimant testified that this conclusion was wrong, that the victim’s grandmother had moved from the area in 2015 or 2016, and therefore had not lived in the neighborhood for years. Claimant sought updates on his parole site on August 1, 19, 21 and 29 of 2018. Initially IDOC responded that his site was denied, and then responded stating it was under review.

Instead of being released on August 17, 2018, Claimant was found to be in violation of the conditions of his parole because and acceptable parole site had not been identified. He was ordered to be released “upon the approval of a viable host site as determined by IDOC. ...” Claimant proposed alternative locations for his release, but those were also denied. Claimant does not contest the grounds for those denials.

Claimant filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County for an order of Habeas Corpus, and on November 8, 2018, a Cook County Judge appointed an assistant public defender to represent Claimant. Claimant testified that the assistant public defender had an investigator that determined the victim’s grandmother moved sometime in 2016. On March 19, 2019, Claimant sent an affidavit to the parole supervisor at East Moline stating that his lawyer’s [*266] investigator confirmed the victim’s family no longer lived in his mother’s neighborhood. He did not receive a reply.

While the Habeas proceeding was pending, Claimant’s lawyer encouraged him to keep pursuing other locations for a parole site. Claimant proposed his aunt’s house as a possible location, and it was eventually approved. Claimant was released on May 7, 2019, to his aunt’s house, and the Habeas proceeding was dismissed.

Upon arrival at his aunt’s house, it was discovered that his aunt had a minor living at the location, which disqualified the location as a parole site for Claimant. Claimant’s parole officer, Mr. Jackson, immediately placed Claimant back in custody and was preparing to return him to the Department of Corrections. Claimant informed Officer Jackson that he had another location where he could go - his mother’s house. Officer Jackson checked the location on his computer, and informed Claimant that his mother’s location should never have been denied as a site, and immediately drove him to his mother’s house.

Claimant lived at his mother’s house for approximately two years, until he completed his parole.

Legal Analysis

This Court recognizes cases of negligent incarceration. Brame v. State of Illinois, 73 Ill.

Ct. Cl. 138, 140 (2020); Evans v. State of Illinois, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 395 (2002). In order to prevail on such a claim, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had a duty, it breached that duty, there were damages, and Respondent’s negligence was the proximate cause of those damages. Brame, 73 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 140 (citing Rogers v. State, 44 Ill. Ct.

Cl. 149, 152 (1991).

In this case the Claimant alleges that Respondent acted negligently by wrongfully denying his mother’s home as a parole site, and therefore extending his imprisonment in the Department of Corrections. As stated in Banks v. State of Illinois, 73 Ill. Ct. Cl. 142, 143 (2020):

To determine whether Respondent breached its duty to Claimant, this Court must apply the appropriate standard of conduct, which in general negligence cases is the reasonable person standard. McDaniel v. State, 69 Ill. Ct. Cl. 156, 158 (2017). This is an objective test, based on the “failure to do something that a reasonable, careful person would do, or to do something that a reasonable careful person would not do under circumstances similar to those shone by the evidence.”

It is undisputed that the Claimant’s mother’s home, which was initially denied by Respondent, was later approved, and that Claimant successfully completed his parole there.

Claimant testified that location should never have been denied, and that the purported reason for denial - that the victim frequented the area of his mother’s home - was false. Claimant also testified that his parole officer, as an agent of Respondent, admitted the location should not have been denied.

Claimant was diligent in attempting to point out to Respondent that its conclusions were incorrect. First, he followed up about the denial in August 2018, then filed a complaint for Habeas Corpus, and in March 2019 sent a message to a parole supervisor notifying him that the victim’s grandmother moved from the area in 2016. Nonetheless, he was not released until May 2019, and then to a location that was not his mother’s house.

[*267] Respondent did not present testimony or provide further evidence as to the basis for the decision to deny Claimant’s parole location in August 2018 and keep in him incarcerated.

Respondent argues that the decision to deny his mother’s home was a decision that should be granted deference, but there is no reasoning provided that can be granted deference. While the State provided evidence it denied the site based on the victim frequenting the area, no evidence was presented as to the reasonableness of the State’s conclusion, or what it was based upon. While the State was not required to be correct in its conclusion to deny the site, it was required to be reasonable. The State has provided no explanation as to what changed between the initial denial of the location, and the approval almost nine months later. Claimant put forth a prima facie case of negligence, and the State has failed to rebut that case.

Therefore, Claimant has established that the State did not act reasonably in denying his parole location and is liable for keeping him incarcerated for an additional 263 days.

In Vazquez v. State of Illinois, 67 Ill. Ct. Cl. 176 (2015), the Court granted the claimant an award of $200 per-day for wrongful imprisonment, citing “numerous mistakes and delays” that resulted in his incarceration. However, this case is more akin to the precedent providing for an award of $100 per-day, as Claimant did not provide evidence of any specific damages (such as lost wages) or egregious conduct by the State warranting an increased award. See Evans, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 395; Banks, 73 Ill. Ct. Cl. 142.

CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, Claimant claim is granted an award of $26,300.