Kucinsky v. Pfister

• Decision Date: 29 July 2020
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3-17-0719
• Citation: 2020 IL App (3d) 170719,162 N.E.3d 426,443 Ill.Dec. 792
• Parties: Charles KUCINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy PFISTER, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center; Joel Starkey; Gregory Kochel; and Edward Vilt, Defendants (Randy Pfister, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center; Gregory Kochel; and Edward Vilt, Defendants-Appellees).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (3d) 170719
162 N.E.3d 426
443 Ill.Dec. 792

Charles KUCINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Randy PFISTER, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center; Joel Starkey; Gregory Kochel; and Edward Vilt, Defendants

(Randy Pfister, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center; Gregory Kochel; and Edward Vilt, Defendants-Appellees).

Appeal No. 3-17-0719

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed July 29, 2020

Charles Kucinsky, of Sumner, appellant pro se.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (David L. Franklin, Solicitor General, and Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees.

JUSTICE CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

443 Ill.Dec. 799

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Charles Kucinsky, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), filed a pro se first amended complaint pursuant to section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) ) against defendants, Randy Pfister

162 N.E.3d 434

443 Ill.Dec. 800

(individually and in his official capacity as the warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center (Pontiac)) and three Pontiac internal affairs intelligence officers—Joel Starkey, Gregory Kochel, and Edward Vilt, in their individual capacities.¹ Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Kucinsky's first amended complaint. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed Kucinsky's complaint with prejudice. Kucinsky appealed, arguing the trial court erred. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On May 15, 2008, a jury found Kucinsky guilty of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder, and Kucinsky was sentenced to consecutive terms of 55 years and 30 years of imprisonment. People v. Kucinsky , 2013 IL App (1st) 111073-U, ¶¶ 4, 13, 45, 50, 2013 WL 2719007 (affirming). The evidence at Kucinsky's trial showed that he was a member of the Latin Kings and the shooting was gang related. Id. ¶ 4.

¶ 4 On August 29, 2012, while he was an inmate at the Menard Correctional Center (Menard), Kucinsky was served with a disciplinary report accusing him of "violent assault" and "dangerous disturbance" two days after he was involved in a physical altercation with correctional officer, Lieutenant Mitchell. Kucinsky v. Illinois Department of Corrections , 2018 IL App (1st) 171567-U, ¶ 5, 2018 WL 4202042. Kucinsky was, thereafter, transferred to Pontiac.

¶ 5 On September 5, 2012, a disciplinary hearing took place before the Pontiac adjustment committee, with the final summary report indicating that Kucinsky had pled guilty. Id. ¶ 6. The adjustment committee found Kucinsky guilty and made disciplinary recommendations (one year in "C grade," indeterminate segregation, revocation of one year of good-conduct credits, six months of yard restriction, one year of audio/visual restriction, and six months of "contact visits restrictions"). Id. Kucinsky filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court, arguing he had been denied due process because he was not allowed to call witnesses at the disciplinary hearing and the hearing report erroneously stated that he had pled guilty. Id. ¶ 7. On September 11, 2015, by agreement of the parties, the circuit court remanded the matter for a new hearing. Id. After a new disciplinary hearing on January 19, 2016, the adjustment committee again found Kucinsky guilty and made the same disciplinary recommendations. Id. ¶ 8.

¶ 6 On December 14, 2016, Kucinsky filed a pro se complaint in this case, which he amended on March 31, 2017. In his pro se first amended complaint, Kucinsky alleged claims pursuant to section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated. He requested $20,000 in compensatory damages, $40,000 in punitive damages, and any other relief the court deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.

¶ 7 In count I, Kucinsky alleged that defendants Vilt, Kochel, and Starkey violated his first amendments rights by deliberately retaliating against him by placing him in administrative detention for attempting to assist his attorney in preparing a defense, filing a civil complaint against the Pontiac adjustment committee, criticizing IDOC and the prison system in his mail, and authoring grievances against defendants. Kucinsky also alleged that defendants Vilt, Kochel, and Starkey violated his first amendment rights by deliberately

162 N.E.3d 435

443 Ill.Dec. 801

not delivering his outgoing and incoming mail, as well as censoring his mail because of the political views expressed therein.

¶ 8 In count II, Kucinsky alleged that defendants Vilt, Kochel, and Starkey violated his right to due process and IDOC's own rules in relation to interference with his mail. Kucinsky also alleged that defendants Vilt, Kochel, Starkey, and Pfister violated his right to due process by placing him on administrative detention status in the "north administrative detention building" while knowing that doing so would cause him atypical and significant hardship, providing vague notice of administrative detention consideration, and conducting "sham" hearings when placing him on administrative detention status indefinitely. Kucinsky further alleged that Pfister violated his right to due process by promoting and conducting a policy resulting in vague notices of administrative detention hearings, leading to Kucinsky being unable to develop a defense and resulting in a sham hearing.

¶ 9 In count III, Kucinsky alleged defendants Vilt, Kochel, Starkey, and Pfister violated his eighth amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Kucinsky alleged that he was subjected to various adverse conditions in the "north administrative detention building" and defendants knew those conditions would cause pain, suffering, mental deterioration, and physical injury and knew those conditions were especially "toxic" to Kucinsky because of his "mental illness."

¶ 10 In count IV, Kucinsky alleged a "conspiracy" claim against defendants Vilt, Kochel, and Starkey. Kucinsky argued that Vilt, Starkey, Kochel, and other unnamed internal affairs officers conspired against him to interfere with his access to the courts, censor his mail in retaliation for writing grievances against internal affairs officers, and kept him in administrative detention "indefinitely." He also alleged that Pfister conspired against him by "turning a blind eye" to the conduct of the other defendants and other internal affairs officers.

¶ 11 In count V, Kucinsky alleged a "misfeasance" claim against defendants Vilt, Kochel, Starkey, and Pfister in that they breached their duty to follow federal and state laws and administrative rules and regulations by deliberately and improperly using their authority to conspire against him and violate his constitutional rights (under the first, eighth, and fourteenth amendments) and by deliberately violating regulations set forth in sections 525.130 and 525.140 of Title 20 of the Illinois Administrative Code regarding the handling of incoming and outgoing mail (see 20 Ill. Adm. Code 525.130, 525.140 (2003) ) "in an illegal act of retaliation."

¶ 12 In support of his claims, Kucinsky made the following allegations and attached documents to his pro se first amended complaint, including some of the various related grievances he allegedly filed. Kucinsky was an inmate at Pontiac from late August 2012 until August 2016. Defendant Pfister was the warden of Pontiac and defendants Starkey, Vilt, and Kochel were internal affair officers.

¶ 13 On July 25, 2013, Kucinsky had received "some discovery materials" to assist his attorney in preparing a "defense." Kucinsky sent some of the documents to the prison's law library for copying, but the materials were not returned. The discovery materials Kucinsky had sent for copying included hand-copied duplicates of e-mails between prison staff referencing an interview that took place with an inmate regarding gang activity. (Kucinsky attached copies of those e-mails to his first

162 N.E.3d 436

443 Ill.Dec. 802

amended complaint as "exhibit 5."² ) Two days after sending the discovery materials to be copied, Kucinsky's prison cell was searched, Kucinsky was strip searched, and all his property was taken. A week later, most of Kucinsky's property was returned, except some additional discovery materials were missing.

¶ 14 In August 2013, Kucinsky was interviewed by Vilt and Kochel regarding the hand-duplicated e-mails. Vilt and Kochel attempted to pressure Kucinsky into stating he distributed copies of the "exhibit 5" e-mails to other prisoners, but Kucinsky denied doing so and explained that he was in possession of those materials to assist his attorney. Vilt and Kochel were "outraged" because they believed Kucinsky was responsible for distributing the e-mails, which contained their names. Vilt threatened to place Kucinsky on "mail watch," harass his...