Fillmore v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 18 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 122626 |
| Citation | 434 Ill.Dec. 707,2019 IL 122626,137 N.E.3d 779 |
| Parties | Aaron P. FILLMORE, Appellee, v. Gladyse TAYLOR et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Aaron P. Fillmore, is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (Department) at the Lawrence Correctional Center in Sumner, Illinois. Plaintiff sued three officers of the Department, defendants Gladyse C. Taylor, Leif M. McCarthy, and Eldon L. Cooper, for failing to follow mandatory legal procedures before imposing discipline upon him for violating prison rules. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus , declaratory relief, and a common-law writ of certiorari . The circuit court of Sangamon County granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016) ). The Appellate Court, Fourth District, affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. 2017 IL App (4th) 160309, 414 Ill.Dec. 692, 80 N.E.3d 835. This court then allowed the defendants' petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017). In his response brief, plaintiff seeks cross-relief.
¶ 4 The IDR recited an accumulation of incidents involving plaintiff and his active involvement within the Latin Kings security threat group. The report noted that the information had been gathered through confidential informants, searches, and monitored mail and phone calls. Specifically, the report stated that the information was
¶ 5 The report indicated that plaintiff had several telephone calls with his brother, discussing numerous Latin King members at Department correctional centers and at correctional centers in other states. The IDR described the content of those phone calls in detail. Department officials also obtained three handwritten notes during cell searches that contained information regarding the Latin Kings and Latin King members. The Department officials compared the handwritten notes with handwriting samples in plaintiff's master file and determined that the notes were written by plaintiff. The handwriting samples in plaintiff's master file and the handwritten notes showed similarities in writing style and lettering.
¶ 6 The IDR set forth the contents of the handwritten notes. One of the handwritten notes stated that the investigative unit at Lawrence Correctional Center had been watching plaintiff and several other Latin King members closely and knew about the gang because an individual referred to as Kevin "told Springfield a lot." The note also stated that Another handwritten note included changes to the Latin Kings' constitution and identified numerous inmates and their leadership positions within the Latin Kings.
¶ 7 The disciplinary report concluded that plaintiff had violated regulation 206 when he stated in his handwritten note that he wanted to "kick Kevin down the steps." The report also concluded that plaintiff had violated regulation 205 when he engaged in the "overt act of accepting an active leadership position within the Latin Kings Security Threat Group" and that plaintiff's active leadership position corroborated that plaintiff "continues to engage in unauthorized Security Threat Group Activity." The report stated that confidential informants' names were withheld due to safety and security concerns but that the confidential informants were deemed reliable "due to corroborating statements provided."
¶ 8 Plaintiff was served with the disciplinary report on December 16, 2014. Plaintiff sent a handwritten letter to the adjustment committee at Lawrence Correctional Center that same day requesting review of the telephone logs for the dates of the conversations referenced in the report. Plaintiff claimed that the telephone logs would show that he did not use the telephone on those dates. Plaintiff also requested that he be shown the notes that were found during the cell searches. In addition, plaintiff requested that eight inmates, one of whom was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, be called as witnesses. The eight inmates had been referenced in plaintiff's telephone conversations with his brother, according to the summary of those conversations set forth in the IDR. Plaintiff stated that each inmate would testify that plaintiff never ordered or directed any security threat group activity within the Department.
¶ 9 Plaintiff appeared before the adjustment committee on December 19, 2014. Defendant McCarthy was the chairperson, and defendant Cooper was a committee member. The disciplinary report was read to plaintiff. Plaintiff pled not guilty and submitted a written statement.
¶ 10 Plaintiff's written statement asserted that the allegations in the disciplinary report failed to "substantiate some evidence" for the committee to be reasonably satisfied of defendant's guilt. Plaintiff claimed that he did not use the telephone on some of the dates reported. Further, if there were any recordings of his telephone calls, those recordings would not substantiate the charges when those recordings were played in their entirety. Plaintiff also denied authoring the notes found during the cell searches and asserted that search records would show that the notes did not come from his "cell, property, or person." Further, plaintiff pointed out that the officer who reviewed the handwritten notes was not a handwriting expert. Additionally, the disciplinary report failed to state what evidence was corroborated by the confidential informants.
¶ 11 Plaintiff also asserted that the December 16, 2014, report violated section 504.30(f) of Title 20 of the Illinois Administrative Code ( ) ) because the report was written more than eight days after the last date of the alleged violation. In addition, the report violated section 504.30(e) ( ) ) because plaintiff was not issued an investigative disciplinary report during the Department's investigation. Plaintiff's written statement concluded that he requested "to see the alleged confiscated ‘notes’ regarding the 12-16-14 disciplinary report, and request[ed] that [his] December 16, 2014[,] witness and document request be reviewed and considered as exculpatory evidence by the Committee."
¶ 12 The adjustment committee's final summary report noted that the IDR had been read and that plaintiff had pled not guilty and had submitted a written statement. With regard to witnesses, the report stated that no witness was requested. In the basis for decision section, the report stated that, based upon IDR reporting, plaintiff was actively participating in the Latin Kings security threat group. The report stated that information indicated that plaintiff had "assumed an active leadership role within the Latin King Nation and is actively communicating with other High Ranking Latin King Leaders." The report stated that information was provided by confidential informants, who were deemed reliable due to corroborating information but who should remain anonymous for the safety and security of the institution. The report then recited the information set forth in the IDR. As disciplinary action, the committee recommended that plaintiff be given one year of C-grade status, one year in segregation, one year of contact visit restrictions, the loss of one year of good conduct credits, and one year of a $ 15 per month restriction.
¶ 13 The prison's chief administrative officer concurred with the recommendation on December 29, 2014, and plaintiff was served with the final decision on January 3, 2015.
¶ 14 Plaintiff filed a grievance concerning the adjustment committee hearing on January 5, 2015. Plaintiff claimed that he received an IDR on December 16, 2014. Plaintiff then personally gave a witness and document review request to a prison counselor to give to the adjustment committee and also sent of a copy of the request to the adjustment committee via institutional mail. Plaintiff's grievance claimed that, during the hearing, the adjustment committee members stated that they had plaintiff's witness request but that corrections officer Harper, who wrote...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Buffer
... ... 2d 95, 97, 150 N.E.2d 815 (1958) ; see People v. Steppan , 105 Ill. 2d 310, 319, 85 Ill.Dec. 495, 473 N.E.2d 1300 (1985) ; People v. Taylor , 102 Ill. 2d 201, 206, 80 Ill.Dec. 76, 464 N.E.2d 1059 (1984) ("It is within the legislative province to define offenses and determine the ... ...
-
People v. Dorsey
...process clause because the legislature created a liberty interest in a shortened sentence that results from good-time credits. Fillmore v. Taylor , 2019 IL 122626, ¶ 39, 434 Ill.Dec. 707, 137 N.E.3d 779. Due process requires that a prisoner receive advance written notice of the disciplinary......
-
Blossom63 Enters., LLC v. Devonshire, LLC (In re Cnty. Collector)
...and "this court does not render advisory opinions or decide issues that would not result in appropriate relief." See Fillmore v. Taylor , 2019 IL 122626, ¶ 34, 434 Ill.Dec. 707, 137 N.E.3d 779.¶ 51 III. CONCLUSION¶ 52 In sum, we hold that Blossom63 strictly complied with section 22-5 by lis......
-
Whitehead v. Baldwin
...attendant upon that interference were constitutionally sufficient." Trevino, 2020 IL App (4th) 180682, ¶ 20.¶ 30 In Fillmore v. Taylor, 2019 IL 122626, 137 N.E.3d 779, our supreme court reviewed the disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed by DOC under section 504.80(k)(4) ofTitle 20 of t......