Briggs v. Walker

NO. 4-06-0454 Filed 9/5/07
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
ISAAC BRIGGS, a/k/a JOSEF DUPREE, ) Appeal from
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Sangamon County
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., Director, ) No. 06MR47
Illinois Department of Corrections, )
Defendant-Appellee. ) Honorable
) Patrick J. Londrigan,
) Judge Presiding.
__________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:
In 2002, plaintiff, Isaac Briggs, was convicted of
aggravated kidnapping (720 ILCS 5/10-2(a)(7) (West 2002)) while
armed with a firearm, a Class X felony, and Briggs is currently
serving a 10-year sentence in a medium-security facility. In
2005, Briggs requested that he be transferred to a minimum-
security facility and be allowed to participate in a work and day
release program offered by the minimum-security facility.
Briggs' request was denied. In January 2006, Briggs filed a pro
se motion for a preliminary injunction (735 ILCS 5/11-102 (West
2006)), requesting that the trial court compel the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC) to transfer Briggs to the
minimum-security facility and allow Briggs to participate in the
work and day release program. The trial court held a telephone
hearing, denied the motion, and dismissed the case. Defendant
appeals. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Briggs is currently serving a 10-year sentence for
aggravated kidnapping (with a firearm) at Pickneyville Correc-
tional Center (Pickneyville), which is a medium-security facil-
ity. Pickneyville has a policy that an inmate may request
consideration for a transfer after six months. Pickneyville also
has a policy that an inmate may request work release if he is
"eligible." IDOC's rules provide that an inmate is "eligible"
for work release if the inmate is not serving a sentence for
kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, or any Class X felony. 20
Ill. Adm. Code §455.30 (Conway Greene CD-ROM June 2003).
Pickneyville's policy allows inmates who have been denied work
release to reapply after three months, provided the reason for
the denial was not due to the nature of the offense, among other
restrictions.
In November 2005, Briggs requested that he be trans-
ferred to a minimum-security facility and be allowed to partici-
pate in a work and day release program offered by the minimum-
security facility. Briggs' request was denied due to his felony
classification.
In January 2006, Briggs filed a pro se motion for a
preliminary injunction herein, requesting that the trial court
compel the IDOC's director, Roger Walker, to transfer Briggs to
the minimum-security facility and allow Briggs to participate in
- 2 -
the work and day release program. Briggs' primary argument was
that it was in the "best interest of society" that the injunction
be granted. Apparently, Briggs would like to earn money for his
family, including his minor child, who is currently residing with
Briggs' wife, and Briggs' parents, who are in poor health.
The trial court held a hearing over the telephone and
denied Briggs' motion for an injunction. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Briggs makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the trial
court erred in denying Briggs' motion for an injunction; (2) the
trial court erred in dismissing Briggs' claim of entitlement to
transfer and participation in the work-release program; and (3)
the trial judge should have recused himself. We do not address
Briggs' individual arguments and dismiss Briggs' case for lack of
jurisdiction.
We do not have jurisdiction to hear Briggs' request to
transfer prisons and participate in the work-release program. A
prisoner has no constitutional right, no liberty or property
interest entitled to due-process protection, to participate in a
work-release program. See Watts v. Morgan, 572 F. Supp. 1385,
1388 (N.D. Ill. 1983); DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d 211, 213
(7th Cir. 1992); see also, for example, a related Illinois case,
Williams v. Thompson, 111 Ill. App. 3d 145, 148-51, 443 N.E.2d
809, 810 (1982) (Fourth District) (reversing a preliminary
- 3 -
injunction requiring prison officials to allow inmates to com-
plete vocational training programs, for lack of right to partici-
pate in said programs). Likewise, neither the provisions in the
Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) nor the Illinois
Constitution, each of which propounds general policies of reha-
bilitation and restoration to useful citizenship, creates an
entitlement to participate in the work-release program. See
Williams, 111 Ill. App. 3d at 149-51, 443 N.E.2d at 810-12
(rejecting similar arguments); 730 ILCS 5/1-1-2 (West 2006)
(concerning restoration to useful citizenship); 730 ILCS 5/3-7-1
(West 2006) (requiring the IDOC to promulgate rules in compliance
with the Unified Code); Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §11. Instead,
whether a prisoner may participate in a work-release program is a
matter of discretion solely for the IDOC. See People v. Lego,
212 Ill. App. 3d 6, 8, 570 N.E.2d 402, 403 (1991); Hyche v. State
of Illinois, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 375, 376-77 (1999) (prison and work
assignments are discretionary with the corrections administra-
tion).
Courts are not to intervene in matters within the
discretion of the IDOC, including the location of where inmates
are assigned and housed. Lego, 212 Ill. App. 3d at 8, 570 N.E.2d
at 404, citing People v. Fowler, 14 Ill. 2d 252, 151 N.E.2d 324(1958); see also Hyche, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 376-77 (no jurisdic-
tion to review discretionary matters of the IDOC). As such,
- 4 -
ruling on Briggs' request to transfer and participate in the
work-release program would exceed the scope of our authority.
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we dismiss Briggs' case
for lack of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
APPLETON and MYERSCOUGH, JJ., concur.
- 5 -