Dupree v. Hardy
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 alleging loss of exercise-yard access, failure to remove IDRs, and return of confiscated property.
- The petition also sought damages for lost, stolen, and confiscated property and a motion for appointment of counsel, which the trial court denied.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Walker under sec. 2-619(a)(9) and Hardy/Mathy under sec. 2-615; the court dismissed in April 2010 as frivolous and ordered Dupree to pay filing fees and costs.
- Dupree appealed arguing (1) discretionary yard restrictions violated rights, (2) failure to remove IDRs, (3) return of property, (4) declaratory relief, and (5) error in fees and possible default/appointment of counsel.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo the 2-615 dismissal and affirmed, holding the claims failed to state a mandamus cause of action and the relief sought was improper or discretionary.
- The court also held that inmates do not have a guaranteed right to yard access, and that the Director may delegate grievance review and that expungement of an IDR does not by itself entitle relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mandamus petition states a duty-right claim. | Dupree asserts a right to yard access, IDR removal, and property return entitling mandamus relief. | Discretionary nature of yard privileges and lack of private right to yard access; officers may delegate grievance review; no proper declaratory relief due to lack of actionable right. | Dismissal affirmed; no mandamus relief on these claims. |
| Whether Dupree stated a claim for restoration of yard access. | Dupree claims statutory right to recreation time and non-discretionary entitlement. | Administrative Code provisions grant discretion to restrict yard access; regulations do not confer inmate rights. | Affirmed; no right to mandatory yard access; discretionary authority valid. |
| Whether Dupree stated a claim regarding IDR removal/ review failures. | Walker failed to personally review and finalize IDRs, entitling mandamus relief. | Director may delegate IDR review; no failure to act by a nondiscretionary duty. | Affirmed; no mandamus relief for IDR removal. |
| Whether Dupree stated a claim regarding return of confiscated property and declaratory relief. | Property confiscation after expungement violated rights and required declaratory relief. | No proper factual basis or cognizable claim for declaratory relief; property regulations allow restrictions. | Affirmed; no declaratory relief or remedy for property return. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, 376 Ill. App. 3d 429 (2007) (mandamus requires a clear right, duty, and authority to comply)
- Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 374 Ill. App. 3d 1098 (2007) (de novo review of 2-615 dismissal standard)
- Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363 (2003) (elements for declaratory relief; pleading standards)
- Beahringer v. Roberts, 334 Ill. App. 3d 622 (2002) (rules governing injunctive relief and standing in tort/relief actions)
- Midwest Builder Distributing, Inc. v. Lord & Essex, Inc., 383 Ill. App. 3d 645 (2007) (public policy favors deciding cases on the merits)