WILLIAM EVANS v. STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2011)

ORDER

This case comes before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Respondent filed its motion on November 5, 2009. Claimant filed its response on November 25, 2009. The Court having reviewed the pleadings and being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:

On February 5, 2009, the Claimant filed a pro se Complaint with the Court of Claims for false imprisonment against the Respondent, the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), in the amount of $100,000.

Claimant alleged in his Complaint that while incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”) he was wrongfully admitted to a mental health facility for five (5) days, beginning on November 14, 2007. Claimant alleged that the sole basis for his being admitted to a mental health facility was his refusal to talk with the mental health staff at Pinckneyville. Respondent asserted that its actions were for the safety of the Claimant because of his non-responsive behavior. In addition, the Claimant alleged that he suffered reprisal for exercising his right not to speak and that he received two (2) months in segregation for his refusal to respond to inquiries directed at him by Pinckneyville officers.

The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon the “notice requirement” of the Court of Claims Act, 705 ILCS 505/22-1 & 22-2.

705 ILCS 505/22-1 & 22-2 states in pertinent part that:

“Sec. 505/22-1. Actions for Personal Injuries - Notice - Contents. Within 1 year from the date that such an injury was received or such a cause of action accrued, any person who is about to commence any action in the Court of Claims against that State of Illinois, …, for damages on account of any injury to his person shall file in the office of the Attorney General and also in the office of the Clerk of the Court Claims,…”

“Sec. 505/22-2. Failure to File Notice - Effect. If the notice provided for by Section 22-1 is not filed as provided in that Section, any such action commenced against the State of Illinois, …, shall be dismissed and the person to whom any such cause of action accrued for any personal injury shall be forever barred from further action in the Court of Claims for such personal injury,…”

As noted in the statute, this notice requirement specifically applies to causes of action involving personal injury lawsuits. The Court acknowledges that there might be a question as to whether false imprisonment claims should be considered a “personal injury” for purposes of Section 22-1, but we hold that in this case the claim properly belongs under the provision. Claimant here pleads that his alleged false imprisonment resulted in his having experienced “five physically and mentally painful days” in the mental health care facility. As such he is pleading injuries to “his person,” which brings those claims under the notice provision. Therefore, we hold that in this case Section 505/22-1 governs.

The Claimant does not dispute that he failed to file notice with the Court or the Office of the Attorney General within one year of November 14, 2007, the date on which his admission to the mental health facility began. Rather, he argues that his claim was filed within one year of the accrual of its cause of action, and thus satisfied the portion of Section 505/22-1 that states “A claimant is not required to file the notice required by this Section if he or she files his or her claim within one year of its accrual.” 705 ILCS 505/22-1. Furthermore, he asserts that because he was required by the Court of Claims to exhaust all remedies before filing suit, the date of ““accrual” for his action should be April 7, 2008, the date his final inmate grievance was exhausted.

This Court has held that a statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendency of institutional grievance procedures to comply with exhaustion of remedies requirements. Green v. State, 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 412 (1999). Moreover, the decision to pursue grievance procedures or remedies in any other tribunal does not absolve a claimant of this Court's notice requirement since Court of Claims regulations expressly allow a claimant to put his claim before the Court on hold while he meets the exhaustion of remedies requirement. Hines v. State, 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1 (1998). See also 74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.60. The Court finds that the date of accrual for the false imprisonment charge was no later than November 19, 2007. Since Claimant did not file his claim until February 5, 2009, he did not meet the one-year notice requirement and his action must be dismissed as untimely.

As for the Claimant's additional allegations regarding reprisal for not speaking and the imposition of two months in segregation, the Court finds the Complaint lack sufficient facts to support these claims. Moreover, the Court notes that it lacks jurisdiction to review the disciplinary and administrative policies and decisions of the Illinois Department of Corrections. White v. State, 49 Ill.Ct.Cl. 187, 189 (1997). These claims, therefore, must be dismissed as well. The Court makes no ruling on whether a claim regarding these allegations might be brought in another forum.

For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Claimant's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

Burns, J.