Armato v. Grounds

Decision Date04 September 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–1995.,13–1995.
PartiesDavid ARMATO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Dennis John DeCaro, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Timothy M. Maggio, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellee.

Before BAUER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant David Armato filed a four-count complaint against five defendants employed by the Illinois Department of Corrections at the Robinson Correctional Center: Randy Grounds, Michele Littlejohn, Glenn Jackson, Dion Dixon, and Edward Huntley. Counts one, two, and three claimed that the defendants violated Armato's constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count four, a state law claim, alleged that the defendants falsely imprisoned Armato. The district court granted defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts, finding that no rational trier of fact could find that Armato was unlawfully detained beyond his court-ordered release date. Armato appeals to this court seeking review of the district court's judgment in favor of defendants on his § 1983 claims.

I. DISCUSSION

Armato, a convicted sex offender, committed two theft offenses in Illinois in 2005, the first on May 7, and the second on December 30. He was convicted of both crimes in separate cases in the Circuit Court of Lake County (Nos. 05 CF 1661 and 05 CF 5015, respectively). On March 6, 2006, Armato was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for the second theft, to run concurrently with his sentence on the prior charge. The judicial orders of that sentence did not impose a term of mandatory supervised release (“MSR”) and stated that the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) shall administer good time credit to Armato “for time served in the Lake County Jail and while awaiting transport to the Department of Corrections.” When the IDOC first processed Armato, he was projected to be released on May 9, 2010, with the mistaken understanding that he had entered state custody on May 9, 2005.

A. Armato's Detainment at the Robinson Correctional Center

Armato arrived at the Robinson Correctional Center in 2007. His sentence was recalculated to reflect the good time credit he earned for his time already served. His new projected release date was November 9, 2009.

Defendant Littlejohn was an office administration specialist and the acting supervisor of the records office at Robinson Correctional Center. One of her primary responsibilities was to calculate every prisoner's release date. In September 2009, Littlejohn began reviewing Armato's paperwork in anticipation of his release. Littlejohn noticed that Armato's file lacked reliable information pertaining to the time he spent in Lake County Jail: it stated that Armato had been incarcerated since May 9, 2005; this was impossible since Armato had committed his second theft offense on December 30, 2005. Using the two criminal judgments sent from the Lake County Jail, Littlejohn recalculated Armato's release to be September 6, 2010. Littlejohn informed Armato of these changes and told him that his release date could again be recalculated if the sentencing court issued a new order detailing any applicable credit. The IDOC advised Armato to seek judicial clarification of his release date.

In February 2010, Armato sought an order to clarify his release date. On February 18, 2010, the Circuit Court of Lake County entered three documents related to Armato: two typed judgments and one handwritten agreed-upon order. The two typed orders were in reference to each of Armato's cases; both orders were signed by Judge Theodore S. Potkonjak and stated in relevant part, “It is further ordered that [w]ith credit for 373 days served in the Lake County Jail—credit for time awaiting transport to the Department of Corrections—good time credit as administered by the Department of Corrections—def to be released from the Department of Corrections without a term of Mandatory Supervised Release.” The typed orders did not reference a specific date for Armato's release.

The Assistant Public Defender representing Armato, C.P. Haran, prepared a handwritten order captioned “Agreed Order” that was signed by Judge Potkonjak. The Agreed Order read:

It is hereby ordered that:

1) Mr. Armato shall receive credit on 05 CF 5015 & 05 CF 161[sic] for 69 days for time in custody from 12/30/05 (date of offense of 05 CF 5015) through March 6, 2006. Defendant had not previously received this credit. (Defendant receives this in addition to original credit for time served[.] )

2) Mr. Armato was not admonished on the record regarding any term of Mandatory Supervised Release.

3). Armato's mittimus shall be amended to include the additional 69 days credit in paragraph (1) and NO term of Mandatory Supervised Release.

4) Mr. Armato shall be released from the Department of Corrections, without a term of MSR, on Friday, May 28, 2010.

(emphases in original).

B. The Defendants Believe Armato's Typed Sentencing Orders are Against State Law and Seek Guidance from the Office of the Attorney General

On February 22, 2010, Littlejohn received the two typed orders and recalculated Armato's release date to be August 23, 2009.1 As a result, Armato was eligible for release. However, Littlejohn was concerned that the orders stated Armato should be released without a term of MSR; Littlejohn believed that Illinois law required a term of MSR in Armato's case (At the time of Armato's sentencing, § 5–8–1(d) of the Unified Code of Corrections provided, “Except where a term of natural life is imposed, every sentence shall include as though written therein a term in addition to the term of imprisonment.... [S]uch term shall be identified as a mandatory supervised release term.”). Littlejohn understood that when a previously-convicted sex offender is released from custody, he is subject to strict MSR conditions such as electronic monitoring and a suitable host location approved by the IDOC. If Armato was subject to a term of MSR, he would need to find an approved host location for electronic monitoring before he could be released. While efforts had been made to find a suitable host location for Armato, none could be found. Littlejohn determined that even if Armato was subject to release, the IDOC could not release him without first finding a suitable host location.

That same day, Littlejohn contacted the Lake County Assistant State's Attorney who confirmed that the sentencing judge had in fact intended no term of MSR be imposed. Littlejohn then informed her IDOC colleagues of her concerns about Armato's case. By February 23, 2010, the following employees at the IDOC Headquarters were made aware of the situation: Defendant Glenn Jackson, Chief Records Officer and Littlejohn's supervisor; Defendant Edward Huntley, Chief Legal Counsel and Special Litigation Counsel; the coordinator for sex offender services; and one other attorney within IDOC. An attorney for the Prisoner Review Board was also informed of the matter. These individuals agreed with Littlejohn that a term of MSR was mandatory for Armato by operation of state law. The attorney at the IDOC Headquarters advised the defendants that it was necessary to contact the Illinois Office of the Attorney General (“AG's Office”) for assistance. In a group email, the attorney wrote, “The Court in my opinion cannot legally sentence the offender without a term of MSR. Unless we challenge the order through the AG's Office, I think we are bound to follow the order.”

Jackson informed Littlejohn that based on her most recent calculation of Armato's release date and the fact that a suitable host site was not secured, the appropriate line of action would be to “violate [Armato] at the door.” 2 Armato was first violated at the door on February 23, 2010. Defendant Dixon, the Supervisor of the Sex Offender Unit in the Parole Division at Robinson Correctional Center, prepared the violation report and notice of charges against Armato. Dixon was unaware that the court had not imposed a term of MSR for Armato.

Littlejohn again contacted Huntley on February 26, 2010, seeking an update on Armato's case. That day, Huntley contacted the AG's Office to challenge the sentencing orders and have the court amend them to include a term of MSR. On several occasions, Huntley spoke with the AG's Office in an attempt to persuade them to seek relief on behalf of the IDOC in the Circuit Court of Lake County. The AG's Office did not make an immediate decision as to whether it would take up the case; IDOC officials waited through spring to receive a response. During this time, Huntley was in contact with Jackson and told him not to release Armato until the issue was resolved.

On March 9, 2010, Armato submitted an emergency grievance in regard to his continued detainment to the Warden, defendant Randy Grounds. Grounds was responsible for enforcing all of Robinson Correctional Center's policies and procedures, including the review of emergency grievances. Since emergency grievances are limited to special circumstances involving health, injury, or other medical issues, Grounds denied Armato's emergency grievance. Grounds authorized Armato to instead pursue a regular grievance through normal channels, which he did later that month. The reviewing grievance officer concluded that the issue raised in Armato's grievance would have to be resolved by the IDOC's Administrative Review Board because a “legal opinion will have to be rendered regarding the validity” of the judge's sentencing orders requiring release without a term of MSR. Grounds never reviewed the second grievance, but the Assistant Warden, with authority, signed Grounds' name indicating that the Warden agreed with the grievance officer's decision.

On April 7, 2010, the Prison Review Board held a hearing with Armato in relation to his first violation at the door. The Prison Review Board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
177 cases
  • Pindak v. Dart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 27 August 2015
    ...color of state law, and (2) violated the plaintiff's rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Armato v. Grounds, 766 F.3d 713, 719–20 (7th Cir.2014). In addition to those two elements, in order for a plaintiff to establish liability of an entity—whether municipal or priva......
  • Larchmont Holdings, LLC v. N. Shore Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • 9 November 2017
    ...but "the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Armato v. Grounds , 766 F.3d 713, 719 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ).II. ......
  • Murphy v. Raoul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 31 March 2019
    ...Dep't of Corr. , 669 F. App'x 302, 303 (7th Cir. 2016) ; Childress v. Walker , 787 F.3d 433, 438 (7th Cir. 2015) ; Armato v. Grounds , 766 F.3d 713, 721 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Jones v. Skalski , 494 F. App'x 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) ; Schneider v. Cty. of Will , 366 F. App'x 683, 685 (7th Cir. 2......
  • Jones v. Dupage Cnty. Sheriff's Office
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 29 March 2021
    ...or laws of the United States.’ " Colbert v. City of Chicago , 851 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Armato v. Grounds , 766 F.3d 713, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2014) ). Here, there is no dispute that Kuschell acted under color of state law in his official capacity as a DuPage County sheriff's d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT