Fillmore v. Taylor
80 N.E.3d 835
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Aaron Fillmore, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center, was charged in a December 16, 2014 disciplinary report with gang/unauthorized organization activity and intimidation/threats based on informant statements, seized notes, and recorded phone calls.
- Fillmore submitted written requests and a handwritten statement asserting innocence, requesting to see the confiscated notes, telephone logs/recordings, and listing inmate witnesses; he also objected at the hearing to committee impartiality after a member allegedly said higher authorities ordered a guilty finding and specific penalties.
- The adjustment committee (McCarthy and Cooper) declined to show or independently review the primary materials, refused to call or interview the listed witnesses, and did not document Fillmore’s objection to their impartiality; they found him guilty and recommended sanctions, which the chief officer approved.
- Fillmore filed administrative grievances which were denied (Director Taylor concurred), then sued seeking mandamus (Count I), declaratory relief (Count II), and a common-law writ of certiorari (Count III); the trial court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
- On appeal the court reviewed the 2-615 dismissal de novo and held some mandamus claims were legally deficient (discretionary duties) but found mandamus and certiorari claims adequate as to specified nondiscretionary regulatory violations (failure to document objection; failure to include summary of written statement; refusal to produce notes; alleged bias), remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may compel compliance with specific IDOC regulations | Fillmore: mandamus should compel Department to follow regs (produce notes, document objections, include summary of his written statement) | Defendants: many regulatory acts require discretion or plaintiff failed preconditions; therefore not subject to mandamus | Court: mandamus available only for clear nondiscretionary duties; affirmed dismissal of mandamus claims that require judgment but reversed as to duties to document impartiality objection and to include summary of written statement — those are ministerial and state a mandamus claim |
| Whether the eight-day service deadline (20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.30(f)) was violated | Fillmore: disciplinary report was served beyond 8-day limit as it lists incidents older than 8 days | Defendants: timing may be justified by later discovery (e.g., informant interviews, handwriting comparisons); plaintiff has not pled facts proving violation | Court: plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to show a violation of the eight-day rule for certiorari or mandamus; claim dismissed on pleadings |
| Whether committee’s refusal to produce/allow inspection of incriminating notes violated process and supports certiorari | Fillmore: notes were relevant evidence; denying access prevented him from presenting defense and violated 504.80(f)(1) | Defendants: either procedural noncompliance by Fillmore in requesting or discretion to limit presentation; generally disputed | Court: refusal to produce notes (if true) violates regulation and gives good cause for certiorari; administrative record must show production or justify refusal — claim survives dismissal |
| Whether committee bias (instruction from higher-ups to find guilty) justifies certiorari relief | Fillmore: alleged statement by Cooper that they were directed to find him guilty and impose set penalties; this rebuts presumptive impartiality | Defendants: presumption of impartiality; any claimed bias not proven on face of complaint | Court: taking allegations as true, a reasonable observer could infer prejudgment; claim of lack of impartiality states good cause for certiorari and survives dismissal |
| Proper remedy for review of prison disciplinary action — certiorari vs declaratory judgment | Fillmore sought declaratory relief and certiorari | Defendants: procedural defenses and prematurity | Court: declaratory judgment (Count II) is legally insufficient because certiorari is the proper common-law vehicle to review prison disciplinary decisions; Count II dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burris v. White, 232 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (elements and limits of mandamus relief)
- Holly v. Montes, 231 Ill. 2d 153 (Ill. 2008) (mandamus to enforce statutory duties; statutory rights distinct from constitutional claims)
- Ashley v. Snyder, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1252 (Ill. App. 3d 2000) (prison handbooks/bulletins do not themselves create constitutional rights; discussed in opinion and limited)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (scope of liberty interests protected by due process in prison contexts)
- Thompson v. Lane, 194 Ill. App. 3d 855 (Ill. App. 3d 1990) (prison disciplinary procedures must follow departmental regulations; right to present documentary evidence)
- Alicea v. Snyder, 321 Ill. App. 3d 248 (Ill. App. 3d 2001) (common-law certiorari is the correct vehicle to review prison disciplinary penalties)