Hervey v. Skeens
| Decision Date | 22 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-19-0872,4-19-0872 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (4th) 190872 -U |
| Parties | RONNIE HERVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KRISTINA SKEENS, JOHN R. BALDWIN, and MICHAEL MELVIN, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Livingston County
Honorable Jennifer Hartmann Bauknecht, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings upon reviewing the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim alleging his due process rights were violated when his request to introduce security footage at his disciplinary hearing was denied. The appellate court otherwise affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims.
¶ 2 Plaintiff, Ronnie Hervey, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against various Department of Corrections (DOC) officials and employees. On appeal, plaintiff argues that contrary to the finding of the trial court, his petition for a common law writ of certiorari sufficiently alleged several claims upon which relief could be granted. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 4 A. Disciplinary Ticket ¶ 5 On December 9, 2017, plaintiff was incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center (Hill). On that date, plaintiff was allegedly involved in an incident where another inmate was stabbed with a sharp object. Following an investigation, on December 14, 2017, a correctional officer issued plaintiff a disciplinary ticket alleging he violated the following DOC rules: Rule 100 (Violent Assault), Rule 102(c) (Assault), Rule 104 (Dangerous Contraband), Rule 105 (Dangerous Disturbance), and Rule 205 (Gang Activity). Specifically, the correctional officer asserted plaintiff participated in an assault of Sammie Daniels after he saw Daniels fighting with Ramell Sturdivant, who was affiliated with the same gang as plaintiff.
¶ 6 DOC's Adjustment Committee held a hearing on the disciplinary ticket on December 20, 2017. Plaintiff pleaded not guilty to the charges and requested a continuance, which the Adjustment Committee denied. According to the Adjustment Committee's final summary report, plaintiff made the following statement at the hearing:
The Adjustment Committee found plaintiff guilty based on the statements provided by three confidential witnesses. The confidential witnesses indicated plaintiff participated in the assault and handed the knife he used to stab Daniels to his cellmate, who then hid it underneath the toilet in the upstairs bathroom. The Adjustment Committee found the confidential witnesses' statements to be reliable because they were corroborated by other evidence, including the weapon located after the assault.
¶ 7 Based on its decision, the Adjustment Committee recommended the following disciplinary action for plaintiff: one year of "C grade status," one year of segregation, revocation of six months good-conduct credit, three months of yard restrictions, one year of audio and visual restrictions, and six months of contact visit restrictions. The Chief Administrative Officer, defendant Michael Melvin, concurred with the recommendation.
¶ 9 On January 22, 2018, plaintiff filed a grievance challenging the disciplinary proceedings. In his grievance, plaintiff identified several violations of DOC regulations throughout the disciplinary process, including claims of correctional officer misconduct and allegations the Adjustment Committee failed to review security footage from the day room at Hill where the incident took place. According to plaintiff, a review of this footage would exonerate him and cast doubt on the reliability of the confidential sources. Plaintiff requested a review of the security footage, restoration of his good-conduct credit, reduction of his security level, and expungement of the disciplinary ticket from his record.
¶ 10 Upon review, a prison grievance officer recommended denial of the grievance, concluding the final summary report contained sufficient evidence to substantiate the disciplinary ticket. Plaintiff appealed the decision, which the Administrative Review Board (ARB) denied without a formal hearing. The ARB concluded plaintiff's due process rights were not violated and it was satisfied plaintiff had committed the offenses alleged in the disciplinary ticket.
¶ 12 In September 2018, plaintiff filed a petition for a common law writ of certiorari against defendants Kristina Skeens, an Adjustment Committee chairperson; Michael Melvin, theChief Administrative Officer; and John Baldwin, the acting Director of DOC. Plaintiff alleged, in part, that defendants violated DOC regulations in the disciplinary proceedings and he was denied his right to due process. In January 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Procedure Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2018)). Defendants asserted plaintiff's petition must be dismissed because he was not entitled to relief based on the alleged violation of DOC regulations and bias, and he received all of the due process required under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). In October 2019, the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding plaintiff was not denied his right to due process and that "the video was not exculpatory evidence and therefore defendants did not have a duty to disclose it to plaintiff." Plaintiff then filed a motion for rehearing, which the trial court denied.
¶ 13 This appeal followed.
¶ 15 On appeal, plaintiff argues his complaint sufficiently alleged several claims upon which relief could be granted. Defendants concede plaintiff's due process claim regarding his request to present the security footage as documentary evidence was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, and therefore this court should reverse and remand on that issue. Defendants further argue we should affirm the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims. We agree with defendants.
¶ 17 Initially, we note defendants acknowledge their motion to dismiss should have been filed under section 2-615 of the Procedure Code, as opposed to section 2-619, because it "attacked the sufficiency of [plaintiff's] complaint ***." 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2018).
Nonetheless, defendants maintain this improper labeling does not require reversal, as plaintiff ultimately responded to the motion and treated it as a section 2-615 motion. Plaintiff makes no attempt on appeal to challenge the trial court's dismissal order on the ground that defendants filed an improperly labeled motion to dismiss, and the record shows plaintiff consistently treated the motion as a section 2-615 motion. Under these circumstances, we decline to reverse in reliance on defendants' improper labeling of their motion to dismiss. See, e.g., O'Callaghan v. Satherlie, 2015 IL App (1st) 142152, ¶ 21, 36 N.E.3d 999 (). Therefore, we review de novo the question of "whether the allegations of the complaint, taken as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted." Fillmore v. Taylor, 2019 IL 122626, ¶ 35, 137 N.E.3d 779.
¶ 19 Ordinarily, the first step in analyzing a procedural due process claim is to determine whether the plaintiff has a constitutionally protected interest. Hill v. Walker, 241 Ill. 2d 479, 485, 948 N.E.2d 601, 604 (2011). If no constitutionally protected interest exists, there can be no due process violation. Id. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged the revocation of good-conduct credit and the imposition of a one-year term of disciplinary segregation infringed upon his constitutionally protected liberty interest, assertions defendants did not dispute in their motion to dismiss.
¶ 20 The second step in analyzing a procedural due process claim is to determine whether the plaintiff was accorded the procedural protections to which he was entitled. People v.Morales, 2015 IL App (1st) 131207, ¶ 20, 24 N.E.3d 1260. In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, those protections include:
"(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges, (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and (3) a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action." Fillmore, 2019 IL 122626, ¶ 57 (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67).
Additionally, to comport with due process, the findings of the disciplinary board "must be supported by some evidence in the record." Id.
¶ 22 Plaintiff argues the trial court erroneously dismissed his claim that defendant Skeens violated his due process rights when she "omitt[ed] plaintiff's reason for asking [for a continuance] and [a reason for] her decision to deny [the request]" and "omitt[ed] any indication of video existing from the record." Although plaintiff does not specifically argue defendants violated a DOC regulation, defendants argue that to the extent plaintiff alleges such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial