Williams v. Commissary Department of the Illinois Department of Corrections

NO. 4-10-0044 Opinion Filed 3/30/11
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
MASON WILLIAMS, ) Appeal from
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Livingston County
THE COMMISSARY DEPARTMENT OF THE ) No. 09MR79
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
PONTIAC CORRECTIONAL CENTER; PATRICK )
QUINN, Governor; MICHAEL RANDALL, )
Director; JOSEPH V. MATHY, Warden; )
MARCUS HARDY, Assistant Warden; MARK )
ALLAN, Commissary Supervisor; MARK )
SPENCER, Law Library Supervisor; and ) Honorable
MARY RITZELL, Property Supervisor, ) Jennifer H. Bauknecht,
Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court,
with opinion.
Justices Turner and Appleton concurred in the judgment
and opinion.
OPINION
In July 2009, plaintiff, Mason Williams pro se filed a
complaint pursuant to section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights
Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. §1983 (1994)). In January 2010, the trial
court dismissed Williams' complaint, noting that Williams'
complaint was frivolous and lacked "any arguable basis in law or
fact." Williams appeals that dismissal, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In May 1994, while serving an 18-year prison sentence,
a jury convicted Williams of two counts of aggravated battery on
a correctional officer (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(6) (West 1992)). The
trial court thereafter sentenced Williams to 10 years in prison
on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. In
February 1996, we affirmed Williams' conviction and sentences.
People v. Williams, 277 Ill. App. 3d 1053, 661 N.E.2d 1186(1996).
Since our opinion in Williams was published in February
1996, Williams has filed the following civil appeals, expressing
dissatisfaction in one way or another with his prison accommoda-
tions, all of which this court or the federal courts have re-
jected:
A. Cases Filed in This Court
* Williams v. Walker, No. 4-05-0448 (June 13, 2006)
(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (pris-
oner civil rights claim);
* Williams v. Dallas, No. 4-06-1102 (December 21, 2007)
(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (pris-
oner mandamus petition);
* Williams v. Health Care Services, No. 4-06-1101 (Decem-
ber 28, 2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court
Rule 23) (prisoner claim against prison health-care
providers);
* Williams v. Illinois Department of Corrections, No. 4-
10-0128 (February 18, 2011) (unpublished order under
Supreme Court Rule 23) (prisoner mandamus petition);
B. Cases Filed in Federal Court
* Williams v. Snyder, No. 00-cv-01372 (C.D. Ill. 2000)
(petition for writ of habeas corpus (general)) filed
November 1, 2000, and closed November 6, 2000;
- 2 -
* Williams v. Mote, No. 04-cv-01208 (C.D. Ill. 2004)
(petition for writ of habeas corpus (prison condi-
tions)) filed June 29, 2004, and closed July 29, 2004;
* Williams v. McAdory, No. 04-cv-01438 (C.D. Ill. 2005)
(prisoner civil rights claim) filed December 23, 2004,
and closed January 18, 2005;
* Williams v. Mote, No. 04-cv-01439 (C.D. Ill. 2005)
(prisoner civil rights claim) filed December 23, 2004,
and closed January 20, 2005;
* Williams v. Walker, No. 05-cv-01004 (C.D. Ill. 2005)
(prisoner civil rights claim) filed January 4, 2005,
and closed January 18, 2005;
* Williams v. Wexford Health Care Service, No. 06-cv-
01105 (C.D. Ill. 2006)(prisoner civil rights claim)
filed April 21, 2006, and closed May 2, 2006;
* Williams v. Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
No. 06-cv-01199 (C.D. Ill. 2006) (petition for writ of
habeas corpus (general)) filed August 7, 2006, and
closed August 8, 2006;
* Williams v. Mahone, No. 10-cv-01289 (C.D. Ill. 2010)
(petition for writ of habeas corpus (prison condi-
tions)) filed September 23, 2010, and closed October 8,
2010.
C. The Current Case
In July 2009, Williams pro se filed a complaint pursu-
ant to section 1983, alleging that defendants, Commissary Depart-
- 3 -
ment of the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC), Pontiac
Correctional Center, the Illinois Governor, and various DOC
employees, violated his rights by (1) limiting his spending at
the prison commissary and (2) restricting him from enjoying
sufficient consumption of radio, television, and magazines. In
January 2010, the trial court dismissed Williams' complaint with
prejudice, noting that Williams' complaint was frivolous and
lacked "any arguable basis in law or fact."
This appeal followed.
II. WILLIAMS' CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
Williams pro se appeals, arguing that the trial court
erred by dismissing his complaint. Specifically, Williams
contends that the court erred by dismissing his complaint because
prison officials violated his rights by (1) limiting his spending
at the prison commissary and (2) restricting him from enjoying
sufficient consumption of radio, television, and magazines.
Defendants respond that Williams' claims (1) are time-barred, (2)
have not been fully exhausted administratively, and (3) are, in
any event, substantively meritless. Defendants' points are well
taken. As previously outlined, Williams' current appeal is yet
another in a long line of frivolous appeals, lacking any arguable
basis in law or fact.
In short, it appears that Williams, in an effort to
occupy his time while incarcerated, has been engaged in what can
best be described as "litigation for sport." This court intends
to stop Williams' frivolous litigation or, at a minimum, make him
- 4 -
pay for continuing his abuse of the courts.
Because we conclude that Williams' current claims are
as meritless as they have been for much of the last decade, we
affirm the trial court's judgment. As part of our judgment, we
direct Williams to show cause within 30 days why sanctions should
not be entered against him under Illinois Supreme Court Rule
375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). Until such time as (1) Williams
responds to this order and (2) this court determines what action
to take, we direct the clerk of this court to disregard--and by
that we mean to not file--any new appeals submitted to this court
by Williams.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's
judgment.
Affirmed.
- 5 -