STEVEN LISLE JR v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2009)

Prisoners and Inmates-Administrative decisions within discretion of prison, no jurisdiction to review Jurisdiction-Department of Corrections, administrative policies, no Jurisdiction

OPINION

This claim is before the Court by way of evidentiary hearing conducted December 2, 2008 at Springfield, Illinois before Commissioner Murphy utilizing video teleconferencing with Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”).

Claimant, Steven Lisle, Jr., an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), while incarcerated at Menard on August 9, 2007, was given a disciplinary ticket for disobeying a direct order and other offenses. On August 21, 2007, Claimant filed a grievance requesting a polygraph test, dismissal of the ticket, release from segregation, investigation and possible transfer for his own safety. Claimant also filed subsequent grievances dated September 12, 13 and 18, 2007, requesting transfer because of counselor neglect and medical neglect of his foot condition. Claimant's grievance was denied on October 3, 2007. There is no record from the Administrative Review Board but the record does contain writings from Claimant requesting an appeal. Claimant filed this Complaint on November 13, 2007, with no specific allegations written in the Complaint other than he suffered mental anguish, fear and paranoia, sharp pain in his left arm, veins and nerves. Claimant seeks compensation in the amount of $10,000.

Facts

Claimant testified at hearing that Menard policy requires accuracy in written disciplinary reports and Officer Robinson did not write an accurate report because he left out information regarding a video camera tape. Further, Claimant alleges he was refused medical attention. After his mother called to complain, Internal Affairs investigated and found the tape, reviewed it out of Claimant's presence and determined that Claimant was not assaulted. Claimant was never allowed to view the tape. Claimant then wrote to the warden about the assault and requested a polygraph test. Claimant believes the fact that the Officer failed to reference the tape in his disciplinary report evidences a cover-up of the assault. Claimant feels that his life is threatened and that it is unprofessional of the Warden not to talk to him or give him a polygraph.

According to Claimant, his lip and nose were injured, and he was bleeding as a result of the assault by staff while he was naked. A doctor cleaned him up while the tape was off. Claimant also testified that the staff used excessive force during the assault and would not let him speak. He believes the doctor was part of the cover-up too. Claimant made general allegations that he was refused healthcare according to policy and suffered boils and bumps on his feet from being left in segregation with no shoes. A CMT, known as Jack, only joked about Claimant's request for medical attention. Claimant provided an Affidavit signed by Damian Jones who witnessed CMT Jack's remarks to Claimant.

Claimant further testified that his medical history required a “one gallery only” pass that had been ordered by one of the head doctors, and alleges that Menard blatantly disregarded that order.

Upon cross-examination, Claimant agreed that the doctor's order was from 2004 and this incident occurred in 2007. Claimant does not have anything that reflects a more recent low gallery order for 2007. Claimant is complaining about problems with his feet because he had no shoes in segregation which was after the alleged assault on August 9, 2007. Claimant denies that he refused to follow orders and claims that he did not receive medical care the night of the staff assault on video. Upon further questioning, Claimant agreed that he did see the doctor that night but the progress report is not accurate. Claimant denied that he had been found guilty of false information in the past.

Respondent called no witnesses. The Combined Rule 55 Discovery and Departmental Report were admitted into evidence as well as exhibits attached to Claimant's Complaint.

Legal Analysis

This Court has long held that it is not the role of the Court to act as a reviewing Court over the administration of prison regulations, except in cases where there may be proof of violation of existing regulations that tend to establish liability of respondent under recognized principles of tort law See Montgomery v. State, 41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 190 (1988); Brady v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 240 (1977); Holmes v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274 (1978).

Here, Claimant's allegations are the Officer failed to properly write a disciplinary report, he was assaulted by staff, refused proper medical care, suffered injury to his feet by being placed in segregation without shoes and was denied the opportunity to provide a polygraph test and be transferred to another institution. A review of the record shows that Claimant was found guilty of insolence, intimidations/threats and disobeying a direct order on August 9, 2007 pursuant to administrative rules and regulations. The allegations of staff assault on Claimant were investigated by Internal Affairs according to policy. Further, Claimant did receive medical care after a cell extraction on August 9, 2007. This Court notes that it is the practice of Menard to videotape cell extractions and discontinue taping during the administration of healthcare in strict compliance with privacy laws. Regarding medical care, notations in the medical record show Claimant may have been bleeding from his lip, but due to his lack of cooperation, assessment was not possible. There is no record of injury that would substantiate excessive force or that Menard failed to follow proper administrative policies. Further, Claimant does not have a unique entitlement to a polygraph test or a transfer upon his request.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the above reasons, that Claimant's claim is denied and his Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Storino, J.