Hurtado v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 11 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-18-0614,4-18-0614 |
| Citation | 2020 IL App (4th) 180614 -U |
| Parties | ROBERTO HURTADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLADYSE TAYLOR, ABERARDO SALINAS, SHERRY BENTON, and SCOTT HOLTE, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston County
Honorable Jennifer H. Bauknecht, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim suggesting his due process rights were violated where his request to interview witnesses was denied and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. The appellate court otherwise affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims in his complaint.
¶ 2 Plaintiff, Roberto Hurtado, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC), appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his complaint against various DOC officials and employees. On appeal, plaintiff argues, contrary to the finding of the trial court, his complaint sufficiently alleged several claims for which relief could be granted. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 5 In January 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to have prison disciplinary proceedings which allegedly resulted in the revocation of "good time" credit and the imposition of a one-year term of disciplinary segregation reviewed under a common-law writ of certiorari. Plaintiff served the following DOC officials and employees as defendants: Gladyse Taylor, Aberardo Salinas, Sherry Benton, and Scott Holte.
¶ 6 In his complaint, plaintiff alleged claims suggesting defendants failed to accord him the due process protections to which he was entitled and violated various administrative rules. With respect to his due process claim, plaintiff asserted he was entitled to certain procedural protections as the revocation of good time credit and the imposition of a one-year term of disciplinary segregation imposed on a liberty interest. In support of his assertion suggesting the imposition of a one-year term of disciplinary segregation imposed on a liberty interest, plaintiff cited Rowe v. DeBruyn, 17 F.3d 1047, 1053 (7th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff further asserted he was not accorded the requisite procedural protections given the untimely notice of the disciplinary proceedings, refusal to interview requested witnesses, and unsupported findings of guilt. As to the refusal to interview requested witnesses, plaintiff alleged he submitted "Witness Request Forms" prior to the adjustment committee hearing and then verbally repeated his request during the adjustment committee hearing.
¶ 7 Plaintiff attached various exhibits to his complaint, including, inter alia, two inmate disciplinary reports, a written offender request, a written statement he prepared for an adjustment committee hearing, an adjustment committee's final summary report, a grievance plaintiff filed following the adjustment committee hearing, a grievance officer report denying plaintiff'sgrievance, and a letter ruling on plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his grievance. The following is gleaned from the attached exhibits.
¶ 8 On October 3, 2014, plaintiff, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (Pontiac), was served with a one-page inmate disciplinary report. According to the report, plaintiff was placed "in Investigative Status" for the safety and security of the institution as he was being investigated for his participation in unauthorized organizational activity relating to a mass protest held in the "North House 2 and 4 Galleries." The report includes the following information:
The bottom quarter of the one-page report is separated by a dotted line, below which it states "(Detach and Return to the Adjustment Committee or Program Unit Prior to the Hearing)." The area below the dotted line has an area to provide the names of two witnesses and a short, one-line per witness explanation of what each witness would testify to. The bottom quarter of the report remains attached and does not contain any information concerning requested witnesses.
¶ 9 On October 16, 2014, plaintiff was served with a two-page inmate disciplinary report, which "replace[d]" the previous report. According to the report, the prison intelligence unit received information from multiple confidential sources and informants between August and October 2014 indicating members from the Latin Folks security threat group housed in "North AD" were composing a proposal to be sent to the warden concerning demands for AD inmates, such as "a step down program, no restraints, mail issues, [and] time frames," and planning a protest to begin inside the prison on September 25, 2014, with inmates from other security threat groups showing support by refusing trays, yard, and showers and by refusing to speak to staff, and a protest to begin outside the prison on September 27, 2014, with civilians holding a silent vigil near the prison. On September 15, 2014, the warden began receiving multiple handwritten proposals following a similar outline from inmates housed in North AD, including plaintiff. From September 25 through October 1, 2014, plaintiff refused all meals, showers, and yard and refused to speak with staff. On September 27, 2014, eight civilians protested outside the prison. During an investigation into the protest, plaintiff, who had been previously identified as an influential leader with the Latin Kings security threat group, was identified by confidential sources as being on the "Latin Kings Crown Council" at Pontiac. Plaintiff's participation in the protest and influence assisted in causing over 60 AD inmates to join in the protest. On October 6, 2014, plaintiff was interviewed and refused to provide a "relevant" statement and "was extremely insolent and rude to the investigator." Based on this information, the report indicated plaintiff had violated DOC regulation 110, which prohibits impeding an investigation, and DOC regulation 205, which prohibits security threat group or unauthorized organizational activity. The report noted the statements from the confidential sources and informants were deemed reliable due to corroboratingstatements, past reliability, and independence. The report also noted the identities of the confidential sources and informants were omitted from the report for safety and security reasons. The report contains the same information as the prior report concerning the process by which plaintiff could request witnesses be interviewed. The bottom quarter of the first page of the two-page report appears to be missing.
¶ 10 Sometime prior to an adjustment committee hearing, plaintiff prepared a written statement. In the statement, plaintiff denied being involved with a security threat group, participating in unauthorized organization activity, or impeding an investigation. Plaintiff acknowledged writing the warden, refusing meals, and refusing showers but asserted his actions were unrelated to any unauthorized organization activity.
¶ 11 On October 18, 2014, plaintiff completed an "Offender Request" form, which he directed to the adjustment committee. The form provided different categories of requests, such as interview, cell assignment, visit, banking, purchase, and "other." Plaintiff selected "other" and wrote, "Witness Request." He also wrote, "(Attached is the bottom part of the Disciplinary Report dated 10-16-14.)" The bottom part of the disciplinary report, however, is not included as part of the exhibit to his complaint. The exhibit to his complaint did include a four-page handwritten list of witnesses he would like "interviewed." Plaintiff requested a correctional officer in the unit where he was housed be interviewed. Plaintiff alleged the officer would testify plaintiff often refused food trays, showers, and yard and spoke with him every day between September 25 and October 1, 2014. Plaintiff requested the 60 other inmates allegedly involved in the protest be interviewed. Plaintiff alleged the inmates would testify plaintiff did not influence them to participate in any protest. Plaintiff requested the intelligence unit officer who interviewed him andthe tactical team members who escorted him to the interview be interviewed. Plaintiff alleged those witnesses could provide information about his alleged refusal to assist in the investigation.
¶ 12 On November 3, 2014, plaintiff was served with a final summary report from the adjustment committee, which consisted of chairman Scott Holte and member Aberardo Salinas. According to the report, plaintiff appeared before the committee for a hearing on October 21, 2014. The disciplinary report was read, plaintiff pleaded not guilty, and plaintiff's written statement was submitted. The report notes no witnesses were requested. The committee was satisfied the violations occurred as reported. With respect to the violation of DOC regulation 205, the committee found:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial