2011 IL App (4th) 100351
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Dupree, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in May 2009 against Hardy, Mathy, and Walker for alleged unlawful acts depriving him of property, yard access, and discipline-related records.
- Walker moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) in Oct. 2009; Hardy and Mathy moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 in Jan. 2010.
- Trial court, after hearings, dismissed the mandamus petition in April 2010 and ordered Dupree to pay all filing fees and costs as frivolous.
- Dupree appealed pro se, asserting (1) mandamus relief was warranted for the listed denials and confiscations, (2) declaratory relief, (3) appointment of counsel, and (4) default judgment against defendants; the appellate court affirmed.
- The court held that the issues lacked a basis for mandamus relief and that the petition and related filings were properly dismissed as frivolous, with fees imposed, and denied declaratory relief; no appointment of counsel or default relief was warranted.
- Procedural posture is that this is an appeal from a dismissal of a mandamus petition and an award of fees, affirmed on review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dupree stated a mandamus claim for yard access | Dupree asserted a right to exercise-yard access, not discretionary | Court held yard access discretionary; no right under code | No mandamus relief for yard access |
| Whether Dupree stated a mandamus claim regarding IDRs | Walker failed to review/finalize IDRs; IDRs unremoved | Director may delegate review; denial not mandamus-worthy | No mandamus relief for IDR issue |
| Whether Dupree stated a mandamus claim for return of property | Property confiscated post-IDR expungement should be returned | Regulations allow property restrictions; no right to return | No mandamus relief for property; insufficient facts |
| Whether the trial court properly taxed filing fees and costs | Fees were plain error; petition not frivolous | Petition frivolous; fees authorized under statute | Fees and costs proper; petition frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashley v. Snyder, 316 Ill.App.3d 1252 (2000) (prison regulations do not confer inmate rights)
- Rodriguez v. Illinois Prisoner Review Bd., 376 Ill.App.3d 429 (2007) (mandamus relief requires clear right and duty and authority)
- Beahringer v. Roberts, 334 Ill.App.3d 622 (2002) (tangible interests and actual controversy needed for relief)
- Mason v. Snyder, 332 Ill.App.3d 834 (2002) (elements for mandamus relief require factual support)
- Doherty v. Caisley, 104 Ill.2d 72 (1984) (no duty to appoint counsel in civil mandamus)