Pitts v. Kolitwenzew
| Decision Date | 20 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 3-19-0267 |
| Citation | 166 N.E.3d 331,445 Ill.Dec. 302,2020 IL App (3d) 190267 |
| Parties | Jacob P. PITTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chad KOLITWENZEW, Director, Jerome Combs Detention Center, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jacob P. Pitts, of Kankakee, appellant pro se.
Jim Rowe, State's Attorney, of Kankakee (Nancy Nicholson, Assistant State's Attorney, of counsel), for appellee.
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Jacob P. Pitts, a pretrial detainee in the Kankakee County jail (also known as the Jerome Combs Detention Center), filed a mandamus complaint in the trial court seeking to compel defendant, Chad Kolitwenzew, the director of the jail (Director), to provide Pitts with barber services and access to a sufficient law library and to stop restricting Pitts's access to correspondence and legal materials as a disciplinary sanction.1 After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Pitts's complaint for mandamus relief. Pitts appeals. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 3 In March 2019, while Pitts was a pretrial detainee in the county jail awaiting trial on certain charges, he filed a pro se complaint for mandamus relief against the Director. In his complaint, Pitts alleged, among other things, that on certain specified dates (1) his correspondence and legal materials had been taken away from him (or he was denied access to those items) as disciplinary punishment, (2) he was denied barber services at the jail, and (3) he had been denied sufficient legal materials or resources at the jail. Pitts sought to have the trial court order the Director to provide him with access to barber services and a sufficient law library that complied with part 701 of the Title 20 of the Illinois Administrative Code (County Jail Standards) (see 20 Ill. Adm. Code 701) and to prohibit correctional officers from denying Pitts access to his correspondence and legal materials in the future. The Director filed an answer to the mandamus complaint and denied Pitts's main accusations.
¶ 4 Later that same month, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the mandamus complaint. Pitts was present in court for the hearing, in the custody of the county sheriff, and represented himself pro se . Pitts was allegedly in shackles, although there is no mention of that in the record, except for one brief reference that Pitts made in passing during his testimony. Pitts did not ask to have the shackles removed and did not object to being restrained.
¶ 5 The Director was also present in court for the hearing and was represented by one of the county's assistant state's attorneys (referred to hereinafter as the Director's attorney). At or near the start of the hearing, the Director's attorney asked the trial court whether the hearing could be conducted "a little more informally" so that she could conduct her direct examination of the Director immediately after Pitts had done so rather than having to wait until the Director's case-in-chief. The trial court allowed the Director's attorney's request.
¶ 6 During the evidence portion of the hearing, the trial court heard the testimony of both the Director and Pitts. In addition, the trial court admitted two jail videos as exhibits for Pitts and also admitted a copy of the County Jail Standards as an exhibit for the Director. The evidence that was presented can be summarized as follows.
¶ 7 The Director testified that he had been the chief of corrections at the county jail for the past six or seven years and, prior to that time, had been the assistant chief of corrections at the jail for about four years. One of the Director's responsibilities as the chief of corrections was to ensure that the jail was a safe environment for the jail's employees and inmates. In keeping with that responsibility, the Director enacted disciplinary consequences based on incidents that happened in the jail and in line with the County Jail Standards.
¶ 8 Pitts was currently an inmate at the jail and was awaiting trial for pending Kankakee County criminal charges. In 2012, Pitts was convicted of attempting to escape from the jail. While Pitts was an inmate at the jail (presumably in relation to the current offenses), he was involved in various incidents. According to the Director, Pitts had assaulted and battered other inmates, had assaulted and battered corrections staff, had deployed a taser against one of the correctional officers, and had smeared and used fecal matter within the facility. As a result of those incidents, disciplinary action was taken against Pitts. In the Director's opinion, Pitts was a security risk to the safety of the jail employees and other inmates.
¶ 9 At the time of the hearing, Pitts was being housed in "Max C" as a disciplinary sanction for when Pitts deployed a taser on a member of the corrections staff. Max C was a disciplinary segregation/restrictive housing unit at the jail. While in Max C, Pitts was only allowed to be out of his cell for one hour each day to use the phone, take a shower, clean his cell, and do whatever else he needed to do. When the Director was asked during his testimony if there was a reason why the corrections staff would take an inmate's personal property if a disciplinary action had occurred, the Director responded that if the conduct had occurred inside the cell, the corrections staff would remove items to make sure the cell was clean and that everything was in order before they gave the items back to the inmate. In addition, because Max C was disciplinary housing, less property was permitted in the cell. An inmate in Max C was not allowed to accumulate commissary and could not take with him into Max C any items that he had bought from the store. Items that were needed as part of everyday life, however, such as legal work, were allowed in the cells in Max C.
¶ 10 More specifically as to Pitts's accusations, the Director testified that the jail did not have a barber shop or an area where inmates went to get their hair cut. Instead, the jail provided inmates with barbering tools—hair trimmers, clippers, shavers, and plastic guards that controlled the length at which the hair was cut—so that the inmates could cut their own hair or cut each other's hair. Pitts had requested to be seen by a barber or to have barber services at various times while he was in jail and had been provided with the barbering tools by the jail staff. As for Pitts's mail, the Director testified that Pitts was given his correspondence when it was received at the jail, after it had been screened, and that the mail screening procedures were enacted pursuant to the County Jail Standards. According to the Director, the jail did not withhold mail from an inmate as a disciplinary sanction. With regard to Pitts's access to legal materials, the Director testified that the jail had wall kiosks located throughout the facility that contained all of the different legal resources that were available to the inmates. The jail also had law libraries that were located on carts or in attorney rooms in the different housing units for the inmates to use. To the best of the Director's knowledge, the different legal resources available to the inmates were those that were required by the County Jail Standards. The Director denied that he had withheld legal resources from Pitts for disciplinary reasons and stated that legal resources were available to Pitts, even when he was being housed in Max C.
¶ 11 Pitts testified that he arrived at the jail in April 2018. In May 2018, it was alleged that Pitts had been involved in an aggravated battery to some of the correctional officers. According to Pitts, as a form of disciplinary punishment, his legal materials and all his other property items, even hygiene items, were taken away from him. Pitts was left in a cell with nothing other than a blanket and a sheet for about six weeks. In November 2018, Pitts was charged with another aggravated battery of a correctional officer, and his legal materials and other property items were again taken away from him for a period of time. In June 2019, Pitts was alleged to have committed a third aggravated battery of a correctional officer (the incident where Pitts allegedly deployed a taser on the officer) and was again denied access to his property and legal materials.
¶ 12 Pitts indicated during the hearing that he did not have an issue with the mail procedure at the county jail. Rather, according to Pitts, his complaint was about his correspondence materials—his pen and paper—being taken at times. As for barbering services, Pitts acknowledged during his testimony that he had been provided with barbering tools when he requested them but complained that other inmates had stolen all of the plastic trimmer guards so that the only option available to him was to shave off all of his hair. In addition, although Pitts had seen inmates cutting each other's hair in the general population at the jail, that did not occur in Max C because Max C was a segregation unit and the inmates in the unit were not allowed to have contact with each other.
¶ 13 With regard to legal resources, Pitts testified that other inmates in disciplinary segregation had access to the wall kiosks, which had all of the legal resources on them that were required by the County Jail Standards. Pitts, however, was not allowed in the area where the wall kiosks were located. According to Pitts, when he was taken out of his segregation cell
for his daily hour of recreation, he was taken to the booking area. There was no wall kiosk in that area. Instead, the booking area had a cart with a computer on it that contained certain Illinois legal resources. Pitts did not believe, though, that the legal resources on the computer were up to date and was unable to find jury instructions on the computer.
¶ 14 After the presentation of the evidence had concluded, the trial court took the case under...
To continue reading
Request your trial