Murdock v. Walker

• Decision Date: 10 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 08 C 1142,08 C 1142
• Citation: Murdock v. Walker, No. 08 C 1142 (N.D. Ill. Mar 10, 2014)
• Parties: JAMES V. MURDOCK, JR., et. al, Plaintiffs, v. ROGER E. WALKER, et. al, defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

JAMES V. MURDOCK, JR., et. al, Plaintiffs, v. ROGER E. WALKER, et. al, defendants.

No. 08 C 1142

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: March 10, 2014

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This class action suit involves past, current, and future Illinois sex-offender inmates who were (or will be) approved for release from prison, either on parole or under Mandatory Supervised Release ("MSR"). The Plaintiffs were not (or will not be) actually released from prison on their release date, however, because they lack an approved housing location. They claim the Defendants, current and past employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), violated their due process and equal protection rights and continue to do so as a result of this practice. R. 107. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the Plaintiffs cannot establish a constitutional violation or, alternatively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity. R. 219. In response, the Plaintiffs filed their own cross-motions for partial summary judgment on behalf of the named Plaintiffs, aswell as the certified class.¹ R. 223, R. 226.² For the following reasons, the Defendants' motion is granted, the Plaintiffs' motions are denied, and the case is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

I. The Illinois Parole/Mandatory Supervised Release Framework

The State of Illinois allows the release of inmates from prison on MSR or parole (collectively referred to as "parole")³ before the end of their criminal sentences. See People ex rel. Abner v. Kinney, 195 N.E.2d 651, 653 (Ill. 1964) ("Parole does not end or in any way affect the prisoner's sentence but is a correctional device authorizing service of the sentence outside the penitentiary."). The purpose of this release "is to help individuals reintegrate into society as constructive individuals as soon as they are able, without being confined for the fullterm of the sentence imposed. It also serves to alleviate the costs to society of keeping an individual in prison." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 477 (1972). The prisoner may remain on parole, and out of prison, until the end of his sentence provided he abides by all the conditions of his release. These conditions restrict the prisoner's daily activities well beyond the normal limitations imposed by law on an ordinary individual citizen. In Illinois, the conditions may include residency restrictions (as discussed further below), attending mandatory treatment or counseling sessions, and frequently reporting to a representative of the IDOC. See 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7 amended by Public Act 98-558, effective Jan. 1, 2014. Prisoners convicted of an offense which qualifies them as a sex offender under 730 ILCS 150/1 et seq., on or after January 1, 2007, have additional restrictions; they are required to wear an electronic monitoring device, as defined in 730 ILCS 5/5-8A-2, for the duration of their "parole, mandatory supervised release term, or extended mandatory supervised release term." See 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a)(7.7). Those convicted of a more serious sexual offense on or after August 11, 2009, are required to wear an approved electronic monitoring device that has Global Positioning System ("GPS") capability during the release term. Id.

The Illinois legislature has established the framework under which an inmate's parole release is determined. The Prison Review Board ("PRB") is responsible for establishing release dates from prison for parolees, setting the conditions for parole release, and determining whether a violation of a condition should result in a revocation of one's parole. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-1. The IDOC retainscustody of all prisoners released on parole and is charged with supervising those persons during their release "in accord with the conditions set by the [PRB]." 730 ILCS 5/3-14-2. The IDOC is independent of the PRB, though it is required to assist eligible prisoners and report its "efforts and findings" to the PRB so that the PRB may consider the information in its release decisions. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-1, 5/3-14-2.

As a prisoner's projected release date approaches, the prisoner prepares and submits a release plan to the PRB. R. 233 ¶ 6. The PRB then conducts an inquiry into whether a given prisoner is entitled to be released on parole. R. 233 ¶ 6. In doing so, the PRB is tasked with setting conditions for any release on parole under 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1. See Lucas v. Prisoner Review Bd., 999 N.E.2d 365, 371 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2013) (citing 730 ILCS 5/3-3-1(a)(5), 3-3-2(a)(3)); R. 233 ¶ 5. If the PRB determines that a prisoner is entitled to release, the PRB issues a release order that includes a specific date for release, R. 228-3 at 43:6-23; R. 233 ¶ 8; which is usually at least 30 days from the date of the release order. R. 236-4 at 77:22-78:2. Nevertheless, despite a future "release date," the parties agree that under Illinois law, "[t]he PRB's decision to release an inmate on parole makes him a parolee, even though he is still in prison" until his actual release date. R. 233 ¶ 12. The PRB's release order is to be delivered to the parolee within 7 days of its entry. 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 1610.60. The order generally does not include a place of residence for the prisoner. R. 228-3 at 14:6-9.

Once a prisoner has been given a release order, the IDOC becomes responsible for monitoring an inmate's release and subsequent compliance with anyconditions set by the PRB or as required by Illinois statute. R. 247 ¶¶ 15-16. The IDOC has different responsibilities regarding an inmate's release, including (1) preparing the individual for parole (this is mainly done through the field services representative or the inmate's counselor); (2) reviewing the rules and conditions of parole with the parolee; and (3) conducting an overall review of the conditions imposed by the PRB. R. 233 ¶ 16. Generally, IDOC receives a given inmate's release order about five months before a prisoner's release date, though it could be as far out as one year or as little as the day of release. R. 228-3 at 24:4-14. In addition, the prisoner gives his counselor or an IDOC institutional field services representative his full release plan, which includes an intended place of residence, also known as a "host site." R. 228-3 at 15. A parolee must have an approved host site to be released on parole; otherwise, he will remain in custody. R. 236-7. The information is then entered into the computer system. R. 228-3 at 15.

Once the information is entered into the computer, an IDOC representative investigates whether the prisoner's proposed host site is a proper housing location. R. 228-3 at 16:3-12. The representative is required to inspect the location to make sure that, in the case of sex offender parolees, there are no children living at the location, the site has sufficient resources (e.g., functioning heat, running water, and working bathroom facilities), and the location is not within 500 feet of certain areas—churches, parks, and schools—among other things. R. 228-3 at 25:6-26:24. Another important consideration is the fact that prisoners convicted of sexual offenses have "electronic monitoring" as a release condition, 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(b-1),so for them, the host site must have a working land telephone line. R. 228-6 at 16:23-17:9; R. 236-4 at 76:21-77:21. Then, based on all of these considerations, the representative can either approve or deny a proposed host site. R. 228-3 at 34:3-35:4.

If the parolees' location is approved, he is released on the date listed on his release order. R. 228-6 at 17:10-24. If the host site is found to be inadequate but a person living at the location can rectify the deficiencies, that person is notified of the correctable issues. R. 228-6 at 18:1-19:3. If the deficiencies cannot be cured, the representative inputs his negative findings into the computer system, and the prisoner is notified that he will not be released from custody until he finds another place to live. R. 228-3 at 42:24-44:23. This is where the case at hand finds its roots.

II. The Turnaround Practice

The named Plaintiffs are current and former prisoners who were incarcerated, or formerly incarcerated, within the IDOC. R. 236 ¶ 2. Each of them at some point was convicted of a "sexual offense," as defined under Illinois law, and given a prison sentence as a result. R. 236 ¶ 5. Each of them is or has been subject to the same statutory and regulatory scheme described above regarding parole. What distinguishes the named Plaintiffs from other individuals convicted of a sexual offense who were approved for release and actually released is the PRBapproved all the named Plaintiffs for release, but none of them were actually released because they lacked an appropriate host site.⁴

When the release date arrived for the named Plaintiffs, IDOC had already determined that their host sites were deficient in some regard. So instead of actually releasing the Plaintiffs from custody, someone at the jail literally would walk the person to the front gate of the jail as if he was about to be released. R. 233 ¶ 19. But then, instead of releasing the inmate, the jail employee handed the inmate a notice informing him that he had violated the housing requirement of his release. R. 233 ¶¶ 19-20. The Plaintiffs allege, and offer support through their own affidavits,⁵ that they were then taken back into custody and "placed into segregation for a substantial amount of time and/or subsequently returned to the general prison population." R. 233 ¶ 21-22.⁶ The uncontroverted testimony is that inmates without a valid host site, as monitored and enforced by the IDOC, were notreleased even if they had a valid parole order. R. 245 ¶ 17. The Defendants deny that there was a systematic practice of parolees being put into segregation as a result of the host site violation. R. 233 ¶ 22. In any event, the practice of not releasing the inmate and bringing him back to the...