ADALBERTO VAZQUEZ v. STATE OF ILLINOIS (2015)

OPINION

Claimant, Adalberto Vazquez, brings this claim for wrongful incarceration against the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). Claimant seeks compensation for 59 days of wrongful incarceration based on the time he remained in the custody of IDOC after his correct release date. Respondent does not contest that Claimant was incarcerated for 59 days beyond his release date. At issue is whether Respondent is willful or negligent in its conduct and if so, the amount of compensation due Claimant.

Respondent submitted a Departmental Report into evidence. According to the Departmental Report, Claimant pled guilty to a felony in the Circuit Court of Cook County on July 24, 2013. Consistent with the plea agreement, he received a one-year sentence. An August 2, 2013 Order of Commitment and Sentence to Illinois Department of Corrections summarized Claimant's credit for time previously served in custody and provided he would receive 79 days credit towards his current sentence. The credit granted in this Order was incorrectly calculated. A separate Sentencing Credit Order, prepared on July 23, 2014, granted Claimant a total sentencing credit of 199 days. It is undisputed that the July 23, 2014 Order is correct.

On July 26, 2013, Claimant entered into custody at the IDOC Northern Reception Center at Stateville Correctional Center. It was there that an IDOC clerk at the Northern Reception Center Correctional calculated the sentence and granted Claimant credit for 79 days instead of the 199 days he was entitled to receive. Based on this mistaken calculation, Claimant's projected release date was November 5, 2013.

On August 20, 2013, Claimant was transferred to the Vandalia Correctional Center. Claimant's IDOC Cumulative Counseling Summary indicates that on August 26, 2013, Claimant first saw a correctional counselor. At that time, Claimant requested a copy of his mittimus (Order of Commitment and Sentence) and sentence calculation worksheet. Three days later, on August 29, 2013, Claimant informed the correctional counselor of the mistake in the calculation of his sentence. The counseling summary indicates that the correctional counselor believed that the calculation looked odd and that the counselor would review Claimant's file. Despite this promise, the IDOC took no action for nearly a month concerning Claimant's sentence.

On September 23, 2013, IDOC finally reviewed the sentencing documents and sentencing calculation worksheet. The mistake was discovered during this review. Respondent argues that the Order of Commitment and Sentence and the Sentencing Credit Order were not clearly written. Respondent further argues that the time spent at the Cook County Department of Corrections and the Gateway program, indicated on the Sentencing Credit Order, should have been written differently to come up with total credits due Claimant, But it is undisputed that the July 2013 Sentencing Credit Order correctly summarizes the total sentencing credit at 199 days.

As a result of the review, Claimant was given credit for 199 days and his projected release date was recalculated. Because the projected release date had already passed, Claimant was authorized for immediate release.

Had the Sentencing Credit Order been correctly interpreted, Claimant would have been entitled to be released on July 26, 2013, his original arrival date at the Northern Reception Center. Because of the calculation mistake, Claimant served 59 days in custody in error.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

A wrongful incarceration claim may be brought as a false imprisonment claim. Patton v. State of Illinois, 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 174 (1994). The elements of this intentional tort are: (1) Respondent caused Claimant's alleged extended prison confinement; (2) the extended confinement was against Claimant's will; and (3) Respondent acted intentionally and without reasonable grounds to believe that Claimant should be further confined. Id. In the case before us, the evidence shows that the first and second elements are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the record is devoid of any evidence indicating Respondent acted intentionally and without reasonable grounds to believe Claimant should have been confined as required by the third element. Thus, a claim for the tort of false imprisonment fails.

However, false imprisonment is not the sole cause of action available for wrongful incarceration. A cause of action for negligent incarceration is also available. Evans v. State of Illinois, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 395 (2002). Negligent incarceration, or negligent false imprisonment, does not require willful and wanton conduct. Pitts v. State of Illinois, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 29 (1999). In the case at bar, Respondent admits to making a mistake in calculating the release date of Claimant. Specifically, Respondent admits it ignored the total credit granted under the Sentencing Credit Order and, instead, focused on the component parts making up the total credit contained in the Order. Respondent cannot simply ignore the part of the Order that summarizes the total credit and only apply the component parts of the Order it believes is correct. Respondent has a duty to make a reasonable and reasonably prompt investigation of that entire Order. Evans v. State of Illinois, supra.

In addition to the initial calculation error made at the outset of Claimant's sentence, Respondent also failed to promptly investigate the error when it was brought to its attention. The burden on IDOC to verify the sentencing calculation was nominal. But the consequences to Claimant were substantial - and without justification. Claimant first saw a correctional counselor on August 26, 2013, nearly a month into his sentence where he promptly requested paperwork about his sentence. Three days later, on August 29, 2013, Claimant brought the mistaken calculation matter to the attention of the correctional counselor. The matter was not reviewed until September 23, 2013, whereupon Claimant was promptly released.

Because of the negligence of the IDOC, Claimant was wrongfully held in custody for 59 days. An illegal restraint creates the right to recover damages. Pitts v. State of Illinois, supra. The amounts granted for damages cited in Pitts show a great range of potential compensation awarded depending on the individual facts and circumstances involved in the particular case. The $100.00 per day awarded in Evans v. State of Illinois, supra, provides us with some guidance on awarding damages to a claimant wrongfully held in the custody of IDOC.

At trial, Claimant indicated that he was seeking $50,000 but that Respondent offered $100 a day or $5,900. Claimant said at trial that he did not think that amount was fair. He added: “If that's the best you can do, I mean, I'll take it.” We agree with Claimant that the offer is not adequate given the IDOC's numerous mistakes and delays in the instant case. We find $200 per day represents a fair award.

Claimant has proven his claim against Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant is awarded $11,800 in damages arising from his wrongful incarceration.

BIRNBAUM, J.