Torres v. Walker

NO. 4-05-0813 Filed: 4/21/06
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
SERGIO TORRES, ) Appeal from
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Sangamon County
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., ) No. 05MR225
Director of the, Illinois Department )
of Corrections; THE ADMINISTRATIVE )
REVIEW BOARD; and SHELTON FREY, ) Honorable
Warden of Tamms Correctional Center, ) Leo J. Zappa, Jr.,
Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court:
In April 2005, plaintiff, Sergio Torres, an inmate at
Tamms Correctional Center, pro se filed a petition for writ of
mandamus, in which he alleged that defendants, Roger E. Walker,
Jr., the Director of the Department of Corrections (DOC), and
Shelton Frey, Tamms' warden, violated his due-process rights in
prison disciplinary proceedings.
In May 2005, defendants filed a motion to extend their
time to answer Torres' complaint until June 30, 2005. However,
in July 2005, defendants had not yet filed an answer when Torres
filed a motion for a default judgment. Ten days later, defen-
dants filed motions (1) seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss
instanter and (2) to dismiss Torres' complaint under section 2-
615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West
2004)).
In an August 2005 docket entry order, the trial court
(1) denied Torres' motion for default judgment, (2) granted
defendants' motion to file a motion to dismiss, and (3) dismissed
Torres' complaint.
Torres appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by
(1) failing to rule on his motion for default judgment and (2)
dismissing his mandamus complaint. We disagree and affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Torres' April 2005 mandamus petition, and the attach-
ments thereto, in pertinent part, show the following. In October
2004, Torres was issued two disciplinary tickets. One ticket
related to events that occurred on September 14, 2004, when
Torres was assaulted in the gymnasium at Stateville Correctional
Center. According to the corrections officers who investigated
the gymnasium incident, Torres was a member of the Spanish
Gangster Disciples and had agreed to the assault, which was
administered to him by fellow gang members as a form of disci-
pline. The disciplinary ticket charged Torres with violating the
following DOC rules: (1) Rule 205 (gang or unauthorized organi-
zational activity); and (2) Rules 601 and 102 (aiding or abetting
the assault of any person) (20 Ill. Adm. Code '504, app. A
(Conway Greene CD-ROM June 2003)).
The other disciplinary ticket related to a fight that
broke out in the Stateville dining room on September 17, 2004.
During the dining-room incident, Torres was again assaulted and
investigators determined that the fight was due to a gang-related
dispute. The disciplinary ticket charged Torres with violating
the following DOC rules: (1) Rule 205 (gang or unauthorized
- 2 -
organizational activity); (2) Rules 601 and 102 (conspiracy to
commit assault of any person); and (3) Rule 105 (creating a
dangerous disturbance) (20 Ill. Adm. Code '504, app. A (Conway
Greene CD-ROM June 2003)).
Following a November 2004 adjustment-committee hearing
on the two disciplinary tickets, the committee found Torres
guilty of the charges alleged in both tickets. The committee's
final summary report stated the basis for the committee's deci-
sion on the gymnasium incident, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Based upon the observation of the re-
porting employee that [i]nmate Dansberry ***
(known leader for the Maniac Latin folk), and
Aceituno *** (known leader for the Insane
Branch) gave the o[.]k[.] for a violation
(assault) on inmate Torres, that the video-
tape of the gym and that [Torres] was as-
saulted by closed fists punches to the body
of Torres, corroborating information by con-
fidential sources verified that [five other
inmates] were involved in the violation, and
that the [reporting employee] verified to the
committee that the violation was reviewed on
the video, and that [offender tracking sys-
tem] verifie[d] that [Torres] is a member of
the Spanish Gangster Disciples, and that a
review of [Torres'] statement to the R/E was
- 3 -
done verifying that [Torres] did admit to the
violation occurring, this committee is satis-
fied that the inmate is guilty of stated
charges.
The confidential sources have proven to
be reliable based on their corroborating
statements on this incident. Confidential
sources identified [Torres] by photo, cell
assignment *** and by nickname YOYO."
The committee's final summary report on the dining-room
incident contained a statement of the evidence relied on that was
even more detailed than the description of the evidence contained
in the summary report quoted above. Among other evidence, the
report noted (1) the observations of the reporting employee, (2)
information obtained from multiple confidential informants, and
(3) Torres' admissions.
As to each ticket, the committee recommended the
following sanctions be imposed on Torres: (1) one year relega-
tion to C-grade status, (2) one year in segregation, (3) revoca-
tion of one year of good-conduct credit or statutory good time,
and (4) other restrictions related to visitors and commissary
privileges. The chief administrative officer agreed with the
committee's recommendations, and these sanctions were imposed.
In December 2004, Torres filed a grievance with the
administrative review board, complaining about the fairness and
results of the November 2004 hearing. In January 2005, Torres
- 4 -
filed a "supplemental grievance," in which he further alleged
that the final summary report he received on January 20, 2005,
was not identical to the one he originally received following the
November hearing. In February 2005, the board issued a return of
grievance or correspondence, which showed that the board would
not address the issues raised in Torres' December 2004 grievance
because Torres had not submitted it "in the time frame outlined
in Department Rule 504 [(20 Ill. Adm. Code '504 (Conway Greene
CD-ROM June 2003))]".
Torres' April 2005 mandamus complaint alleged that (1)
he was denied due process in the disciplinary proceedings in that
the adjustment committee ignored certain evidence and (2) his
grievances were not untimely. Defendants' July 2005 motion to
dismiss alleged that Torres' complaint failed to state a claim
for mandamus relief. Specifically, defendants asserted that the
adjustment committee's final summary reports sufficiently stated
the evidence upon which its findings were based.
In August 2005, the trial court conducted a telephonic
hearing on pending motions. Later that month, the court (1)
denied Torres' motion for default judgment, (2) granted defen-
dants' motion to file motion to dismiss instanter, and (3)
granted defendants' motion to dismiss Torres' complaint.
This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Torres' Claim That the Trial Court Failed To Rule
on His Motion for Default Judgment
- 5 -
Torres first argues that the trial court erred by
"ignoring" and failing to rule on his motion for default judg-
ment. We reject this argument because the record clearly shows
that the court considered and denied Torres' motion for default
judgment.
B. Torres' Claim That the Trial Court Erred by
Dismissing His Mandamus Complaint
Torres next argues that the trial court erred by
dismissing his mandamus complaint. We disagree.
"We review de novo a trial court's dismissal of a
complaint for failure to state a cause of action." Scotti v.
Taylor, 351 Ill. App. 3d 884, 887, 815 N.E.2d 10, 12 (2004).
"Mandamus relief is an extraordinary
remedy to enforce, as a matter of right, the
performance of official duties by a public
official where the official is not exercising
discretion. A court will not grant a writ of
mandamus unless the petitioner can demon-
strate a clear, affirmative right to relief,
a clear duty of the official to act, and
clear authority in the official to comply
with the writ. The writ will not lie when
its effect is to substitute the court's judg-
ment or discretion for the official's judg-
ment or discretion. Mandamus relief, there-
fore, is not appropriate to regulate a course
of official conduct or to enforce the perfor-
- 6 -
mance of official duties generally." Hatch
v. Szymanski, 325 Ill. App. 3d 736, 739, 759
N.E.2d 585, 588 (2001).
An allegation of a due-process rights violation also
states a cause of action in mandamus. Armstrong v. Snyder, 336
Ill. App. 3d 567, 571, 783 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (2003). The United
States Supreme Court has held that under the principles of due
process, inmates are entitled to the following process in disci-
plinary proceedings: (1) notice of the disciplinary charges at
least 24 hours prior to the hearing; (2) when consistent with
institutional safety and correctional goals, an opportunity to
call witnesses and present documentary evidence in their defense;
and (3) a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence
relied on in finding the inmate guilty of committing the offense
and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 563-65, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 955-56, 94 S. Ct. 2963,
2978-79 (1974).
Torres contends that he was denied due process in that
the adjustment committee's findings of guilt were without eviden-
tiary support. Specifically, he asserts that (1) the committee
(a) relied on unreliable evidence, (b) disregarded his claims of
innocence, and (c) relied on confidential informants without
requiring them to submit to polygraph testing; (2) the commit-
tee's stated reasons for its guilty findings did not explain why
the committee found the investigators' evidence more credible
than Torres' testimony; and (3) defendants used the disciplinary
- 7 -
proceedings to retaliate against Torres for his failure to
provide information to the gang-intelligence unit.
We conclude that none of Torres' contentions are
sufficient to show that his due-process rights were violated. In
so concluding, we note that (1) it is the adjustment committee's
role to assess the credibility of witnesses and make findings
based on that assessment, (2) due process does not require the
use of polygraph testing in disciplinary proceedings, (3) the
committee's stated basis for its guilty findings was sufficient
to satisfy due process (see Thompson v. Lane, 194 Ill. App. 3d
855, 864, 551 N.E.2d 731, 737 (1990) (holding that although
detailed factual findings are not required, "mere conclusory
statements" are insufficient)), and (4) Torres' claim of retalia-
tion is an unsupported conclusory allegation.
Torres also contends that the adjustment committee
failed to comply with section 504.80 of the Administrative Code
(20 Ill. Adm. Code '504.80 (Conway Greene CD-ROM June 2003)) when
it relied on evidence provided by confidential informants without
substantiating their truthfulness. Section 504.80(l)(1) provides
as follows:
"(A) The [c]ommittee may consider infor-
mation from confidential sources if:
(i) It finds that his or her
identity must be withheld for rea-
sons of security; and
(ii) The information is reliable.
- 8 -
(B) Reliability may be established by
one of the following:
(i) The investigating officer
has indicated, in writing and by
his or her appearance before the
[a]djustment [c]ommittee, the truth
of his or her report containing
confidential information;
(ii) Corroborating testimony
such as statements from other
sources or polygraph results; or
(iii) A statement by a member
of the [a]djustment [c]ommittee or
an oral or written statement to the
[a]djustment [c]ommittee by super-
visory or administrative staff that
the individual has firsthand knowl-
edge of the sources of information
and considers them reliable on the
basis of their past record of reli-
ability.
(C) If the identity of a source is being
withheld for reasons of security, a statement
to that effect and a statement that the
[c]ommittee finds the information reliable
must be included. A summary of the informa-
- 9 -
tion provided and the basis for the finding
of reliability shall be documented, but need
not be included in the summary based on
safety and security concerns." 20 Ill. Adm.
Code ' 504.80(l)(1) (Conway Greene CD-ROM
June 2003).
The adjustment committee's summary report on Torres'
first disciplinary ticket (the gymnasium incident) stated that
"the confidential sources have proven to be reliable based on
their corroborating statements on this incident." The commit-
tee's summary report on Torres' second disciplinary ticket (the
dining-room incident) also states that the information provided
by confidential informants provided corroborating evidence. We
conclude that these statements show that the committee complied
with section 504.80 of the Code.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's
judgment.
Affirmed.
TURNER, P.J., and McCULLOUGH, J., concurr.
- 10 -