Matrisciano v. Walker, 03-3072.
| Decision Date | 24 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-3072.,03-3072. |
| Citation | 417 F.Supp.2d 1014 |
| Parties | Ronald MATRISCIANO, Plaintiff, v. Roger E. WALKER, Jr., Director of the Department of Corrections of the State of Illinois, and Donald Snyder, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
Howard W. Feldman, Kelli E. Hillis, Feldman Wasser Draper & Benson, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiff.
Karen L. McNaught, Terence J. Corrigan, Illinois Attorney General, Springfield, IL, for Defendants.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is allowed.
This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wherein the Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. He has also asserted a count which alleges that the Defendants have violated the Illinois State Personnel Rules. The Plaintiff's third amended complaint also appears to direct a First Amendment count against Michael M. Rumman, the Director of the Illinois Central Management Services. Count IV seems to allege that Rumman conspired with Defendant Roger E. Walker, Jr. Defendants Walker and Donald Snyder have moved for summary judgment.
On September 1, 1980, Plaintiff Ronald Matrisciano commenced his employment with the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") as a Correctional Parole Counselor I. He was promoted several times throughout his career with IDOC, serving in positions such as:
• Correctional Parole Counselor II, September 16, 1981;
• Correctional Parole Assistant Supervisor, April 16, 1986;
• Chief of Security, March 23, 1988;
• Correctional Leisure Activity Specialist, July 1, 1991;
• Correctional Community Center Specialist, January 10, 1992;
• Senior Public Service Administrator at Joliet Community Correctional Center, September 16, 1993 to December 31, 1995;
• Assistant Warden of Operations at Dwight Correctional Center, January 1, 1996;
• Assistant Warden of Operations at Joliet Correctional Center, September 21, 1998;
• Administrator of the Division of Field Operations, June 1, 1999;
• Assistant Deputy Director of District 1, July 1, 2002.
The Plaintiff was laid off from June 24, 1982 to February 1, 1984 and from August 20, 1987 to March 23, 1988.
Defendant Donald N. Snyder, Jr. was Director of IDOC from January 19, 1999 through February 23, 2003, and Acting Director from March 15, 2003 through June 1, 2003. He reported directly to the Governor of Illinois. Another Defendant, Roger E. Walker, Jr., is the duly appointed and confirmed Director of IDOC, as of June 1, 2003.
Defendants allege that the assistant deputy director position within IDOC was created by IDOC, with the approval of the Department of Central Management Services. A position description for that position was established by the Department of Central Management Services with the input of IDOC. Since 1999, the position description for an assistant deputy director has been modified at least two times to make minor changes in the duties. However, the duties have remained substantially the same. On July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff became the Assistant Deputy Director of District 11 at IDOC.
Defendants allege that in December 2002, within the chain of command at IDOC, wardens and other subordinate staff reported to the Plaintiff, who reported to the deputy director, who reported through the chain of command to Associate Director George DeTella, then Defendant Snyder, and finally the Governor of Illinois. Plaintiff disputes that he reported to a deputy director when he was the assistant deputy director. The Deputy Director of District 1 died on the same day that the Plaintiff was appointed to his position. The deputy director position was not filled during Plaintiff's tenure as assistant deputy director.
Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's responsibilities as assistant deputy director included: supervising and evaluating the performance of all Adult Transition Centers and correctional facilities in District 1; assisting in the review and assessment of facilities, programs, and activities; initiating change as needed; ensuring IDOC's philosophy, directives, policies and procedures are effectively administered; and supervising staff in Cook, Lake and Will Counties, subject to the approval of staff up through the chain of command. Plaintiff disputes Defendants' contentions, asserting that his duties included overseeing administrative personnel assigned to the facilities and offices within his region and supervising the wardens at Stateville and Joliet.
Defendants further claim that Plaintiff himself described his responsibilities as, inter alia, being responsible for the Stateville Correctional Center (a maximum security penal institution), being responsible for community based work release transition centers, and developing policy for a new reception and classification center. Plaintiff says that this misstates his resume. He was not responsible for Stateville Correctional Center; rather, he "administered the management" of Stateville. Moreover, Plaintiff simply "administered" the programs at community based work release centers. Finally, Plaintiff disputes that he developed policy; he alleges that the resume reads as follows: "Assigned to oversee the new construction, staffing and policy development of the new Northern Reception and Classification Center."
Defendants next allege that as an assistant deputy director, Plaintiff reviewed and approved policies for IDOC such as those on August 6, 2002, August 28, 2002, September 23, 2002, October 8, 2002 and November 7, 2002. Plaintiff disputes this, contending that when he "approved" policies, it simply meant that he had no objection to them. His input was only to express his opinion or comment on whether he liked the policy.
Assistant deputy directors were responsible for enforcing, reviewing and commenting on the agency policies. Wardens were in charge of setting institutional policies and, as an assistant deputy director, Plaintiff supervised the wardens in his district. Defendants further allege that in this capacity, Plaintiff also made recommendations regarding IDOC's policies. Plaintiff claims that he does not recall making recommendations regarding policies. Defendants allege that the assistant deputy director position of IDOC is Rutan2 exempt. But Plaintiff disputes this allegation, contending that there is no evidence regarding whether his position was Rutan exempt.
Defendants allege that on September 27, 1973, Billy Logan was shot to death in Chicago. Harry Aleman was indicted in December 1976 for the murder. Aleman was tried and acquitted on May 24, 1977 before Judge Frank Wilson, a circuit judge in Cook County. Judge Wilson was bribed $10,000.00 by Aleman to be found not guilty for the murder of Logan. Aleman also paid a witness to testify falsely that Aleman had not shot Logan.
Defendants contend that in October 1975, Aleman shot and killed Anthony Reitinger because Reitinger allegedly neglected to pay local organized crime figures to operate his bookmaking operation. In 1978, Aleman was convicted of one count of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; one count of violating RICO; and one count of transporting stolen goods in interstate commerce. Aleman was sentenced to thirty years in the federal penitentiary. In a 1990 federal prosecution, Aleman pleaded guilty to engaging in unlawful criminal activity by collecting for an organized crime group on sporting events and street taxes from independent bookmakers.
Defendants allege that after two witnesses from the Federal Witness Protection Program presented information to law enforcement authorities regarding Aleman's bribe of Judge Wilson and the refusal of Reitinger to pay bookmaking taxes to the Chicago mafia (including Aleman), the Cook County State's Attorney in December 1993 charged Aleman for the murders of Logan and Reitinger. A jury convicted Aleman of both murders and the state court sentenced him to 100 to 300 years imprisonment. Defendants contend that after Aleman arrived at IDOC from federal custody, Plaintiff was asked by Aleman and his grandson to testify on behalf of the parole of Aleman.
Plaintiff says that the aforementioned facts pertaining to Harry Aleman are immaterial to the issues presented in this case. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants are purporting to rationalize the reasoning behind their behavior by attempting to demonstrate negative facts about Aleman.
On December 17, 2002, Plaintiff appeared before the Prisoner Review Board and read a statement in support of the release on parole of Aleman. Plaintiff stated to the Board that he was speaking in his professional capacity as an administrator of IDOC. To prepare for his testimony before the Board, Plaintiff obtained information from the inmate masterfile of Aleman. In his testimony, Plaintiff discussed the programs in which Aleman was involved while incarcerated; the disciplinary record of Aleman; the respect that Aleman displayed toward staff and other inmates; conformance with IDOC rules and policies; the programs and support Aleman would receive outside of prison, if he were released; and Aleman's likelihood of recidivism.
Defendants allege that in his statement, Plaintiff informed the Board that he had worked in various positions with IDOC; that as a correctional professional with twenty-two years of experience, he was willing to go on record and appear in support of the release of Aleman; that he was speaking at the hearing in his professional capacity; and that in his professional opinion, it would serve no penological purpose to further incarcerate Aleman. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants take out of context the statement about speaking in his professional capacity. At the hearing the Plaintiff simply...
To continue reading
Request your trial