Chester O'Quinn v. State of Illinois

OPINION

The claim is before the Court by way of evidentiary hearing conducted October 22, 2024 before the assigned Commissioner utilizing video teleconferencing. Claimant, Chester O’Quinn, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (“DOC”), resided at Dixon Correctional Center (“Dixon”) at all times relevant to this claim. Claimant alleges Respondent’s agents improperly allowed Claimant’s cell mate to pack Claimant’s property, at which time nearly all of Claimant’s property was stolen. Claimant filed a grievance, which was denied, and appealed the decision to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”), which also denied his claim. Claimant filed his Complaint, dated October 13, 2020, alleging $3,000.00 in damages.

Claimant’s Testimony

Claimant testified that in October 2018, Claimant resided at Dixon Correctional Center. While eating lunch in the dining hall, corrections officers entered, handcuffed Claimant without asking questions or providing any explanation, and brought him to segregation. They told Claimant there was a PREA4 Claim against him, and it would be investigated. When an inmate is placed in segregation, it is an officer’s responsibility to secure inmate’s property. That did not occur. Rather, an officer asked Claimant’s cell mate

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 [*210] what property in their shared cell belonged to Claimant and what did not, and instructed Claimant’s cell mate to pack Claimant’s property. Claimant’s cell mate claimed nearly all of the Claimant’s property belonged to the cellmate.

After a lengthy investigation, the PREA claim was determined to be false. Claimant sought access to his property only to find that all of his property box had been stolen except for a bag of cough drops. Claimant had a full property box. Claimant’s food and everything else had been stolen, including a television, hot pot, fan, and all of his clothing. Claimant questioned the receipt for his property that listed only two items total and was informed his cellmate reported those were Claimant’s only items. Another inmate alerted Claimant that his cellmate had given Claimant’s various property items to others. Claimant informed Dixon that his cellmate had stolen all his property and a female officer wrote a “434” report on it. This report documents any unusual occurrence. However, no further action was taken by Dixon to retrieve Claimant’s property from other inmates based on this report.

Claimant was moved to Unit 43 and later, the inmate who had made the false PREA claim was also moved to Unit 43. The inmate who made the claim apologized to Claimant. Claimant responded that if the inmate apologized to Claimant publicly at their group meeting, Claimant would believe him. Accordingly, at a group meeting, the inmate apologized to Claimant for making the claim, which had set Claimant up for Claimant’s cellmate to take Claimant’s property. The apology was made in front of the twenty-five other individuals in the group, as well as the mental health professional who facilitated the group. However, this did not result in Claimant receiving any property back.

Subsequently, on a later date in the dining hall, Claimant recognized his stolen Nike shoes on another inmate’s feet and alerted the sergeant. Claimant previously had written his name in the shoes in black marker and so could prove ownership. The sergeant took action to retrieve the stolen shoes for Claimant, and Claimant wore those shoes to the hearing. Claimant’s television and other smaller items were not found.

Claimant seeks damages of $3,000 as compensation for the items he had in his cell at the time of the false PREA claim, including a 13-inch color TV that cost $215 at the time of purchase and which now costs close to $300; two large bags of coffee that cost $7.56 each and one small bag of coffee that cost approximately $2.00; a fan; a hot pot, ten [*211] Honey Buns; brand new clothing items; other items listed in his complaint; and family photographs that are irreplaceable.

Respondent called no witnesses.

Additional Evidence

Respondent filed a Combined Rule 55 Discovery Disclosure/Departmental Report. Claimant’s complaint and all exhibits, and all supplemental filings, are also added to the record.

Argument

Claimant argued that an officer should have packed Claimant’s belongings rather than relying on Claimant’s cellmate to identify what property belonged to Claimant and allowing the cellmate to pack Claimant’s belongings. This improper delegation by the officer resulted in the conversion of Claimant’s property.

Respondent relies upon its Departmental Report.

Legal Analysis

The first issue is whether Claimant actually owned the property at issue. Claimant bears the burden of proof. Claimant testified credibly as to certain, specific property he alleges was stolen - including Nike shoes that were subsequently retrieved and worn to the hearing. Respondent offered no evidence to rebut Claimant’s testimony regarding ownership. Under Rule 55(b)(1)(B) of this Court, the Respondent shall provide “any personal property inventory sheets and property permits or contracts that tend to prove or disprove ownership of the property in question.” 74 Ill. Admin. Code § 790.55(b)(1)(B). The Departmental Report for this case did not include any of this documentation. It is possible these do not exist. The Court now turns to look at other evidence that tends to prove or disprove Claimant’s ownership of the property at issue. The Departmental Report includes a copy of an Offender Authorization for Payment, signed by Claimant and [*212] approved by the Chief Administrative Officer, for the purpose of “replace lost/stolen [clothing items], Pillow case, Towels, Pillow, Laundry Bag.” This corroborates Claimant’s testimony as to the ownership of at least some of the property claimed. Thus, Respondent has not rebutted Claimant’s testimony regarding ownership of specific property and the evidence we have from Respondent’s Departmental Report at least partially corroborates Claimant’s testimony.

The next issue is whether Respondent bears any liability for the loss of Claimant’s property. This Court has recognized a general rule that the State has no duty “to safeguard an inmate’s property from theft by other inmates when the property is in the inmate’s cell.” Edwards v. State of Illinois, 38 Ill. Ct. C1. 206, 207 (1986). However, an exception arises when the State is negligent in failing to follow its own rules as to inventorying, packing, and storing inmate property. Lindsey v. State of Illinois, 45 Ill. Ct. C1. 121 (1989). While Claimant’s testimony that his cellmate stole his property would ordinarily place liability on the cellmate and not on Respondent, Respondent is not absolved here. Here, Respondent separated Claimant from his property and the transferring officer was responsible for having Claimant’s property packed and inventoried. 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 535.90. Where even Claimant’s Nike shoes that were labeled with his name were permitted to be excluded from Claimant’s property box and retained by Claimant’s cellmate, the Court finds a lack of supervision of the packing and inventorying occurred. Where Claimant suffered a property loss due to lack of staff supervision, according to Respondent’s own Administrative Directive 02.06.110, Claimant is entitled to reimbursement. The Court finds that by failing to follow its own rules, Respondent bears liability for Claimant’s property loss.

The court now considers damages, which Claimant also bears the burden of proving. Harris v. State, 41 Ill. Ct. C1. 184, 188 (1989). Claimant seeks damages of $3,000. He testified as to the loss of several specific items including a television, hot pot, fan, clothing items, approximately 10 Honey Buns, three bags of coffee, and various personal photographs that are irreplaceable. Claimant testified that his Nike shoes were stolen but that he was able to retrieve them. As to the value of Claimant’s lost items, we consider all evidence before the court. Unfortunately, the Departmental Report did not include any property inventory sheets. The Departmental Report for this case did not [*213] include such documents. It is possible they do not exist. The Departmental Report did include an Offender Authorization for Payment for the purpose of replacing various lost or stolen clothing and bedding items in the amount of $89.68. Claimant testified specifically that he had two bags of coffee that cost $7.56 each and a small bag that cost approximately $2.00. Claimant testified that he paid $215 for his 13-inch color television and that a replacement would cost close to $300. We have previously found that an inmate’s testimony can establish the value of property. Seats v. State, Ill. Ct. C1. 418, 420 (1994). This Court finds Claimant’s testimony credible, bolstered in part by the documents we do have at least partially corroborating Claimant’s testimony, and never undermining it. Accordingly, for those items where Claimant has established a specific value, we award damages, including for the original purchase price of Claimant’s television. These damages total $321.80.

However, as to the remaining items claimed, Claimant seeks an unsubstantiated, round number, total dollar amount. As Claimant has the burden of proving the value of damages, this ballpark estimate cannot be awarded and is denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent compensate Claimant $321.80 for his missing property.