Fillmore v. Taylor
2017 IL App (4th) 160309
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Aaron Fillmore, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center, was served an inmate disciplinary report alleging gang-related activity and intimidation based on informant statements, seized notes, and recorded calls.
- Fillmore requested phone logs, recordings, and to see the confiscated notes; he also submitted a written statement denying the charges and asserting untimeliness of the report under the Department regulation requiring service within eight days.
- At the December 19, 2014 hearing, committee members McCarthy and Cooper allegedly refused to review or produce the notes and phone records, declined to call inmate witnesses, and denied requests to recuse despite an assertion that they had been directed by superiors to find Fillmore guilty and impose specific sanctions.
- The adjustment committee found Fillmore guilty and recommended one year in C grade, segregation, loss of one year good-conduct credit, and other restrictions; the chief administrative officer approved; Fillmore’s grievance was denied and Director Taylor concurred.
- Fillmore sued the Director and two committee members seeking mandamus (count I), declaratory judgment (count II), and common-law certiorari (count III). The trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandamus to compel hearing investigator review under 20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.60(a) | Dept. failed to have hearing investigator review a major report | Whether a report is "major" is discretionary; no clear ministerial duty | Dismissed for mandamus — decision to require investigator is discretionary |
| Mandamus for service within eight-day regulatory deadline (504.30(f)) | Report served beyond eight days for listed incidents, so Dept. breached nondiscretionary duty | Determination of discovery/date and offender availability requires judgment | Dismissed for mandamus — timing involves discretionary judgment |
| Mandamus to require written reasons for denying in-person witnesses (504.80(h)(4)) | Committee denied in-person attendance and failed to provide written reasons | Plaintiff’s witness request was ambiguous and may not have complied with required form, so no clear duty to supply written reason | Dismissed for mandamus — no clear ministerial duty because request was ambiguous |
| Mandamus to document and include plaintiff’s written statement and impartiality objection (504.80(d), (l)(1)) | Committee failed to document plaintiff’s timely objection to members’ impartiality and failed to summarize his written statement in the Adjustment Committee summary | Defendants argued procedural compliance and discretionary matters; otherwise denied grievance | Mandamus allowed on these points: duty to document objection and to include summary of oral/written statements is ministerial; complaint states cause of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Burris v. White, 232 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (elements and limits of mandamus)
- West v. Gramley, 262 Ill. App. 3d 552 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (prisoner may seek mandamus to enforce nondiscretionary regulatory duties)
- Thompson v. Lane, 194 Ill. App. 3d 855 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (prison disciplinary procedures require adherence to agency regulations and allow presentation of documentary evidence)
- Holly v. Montes, 231 Ill. 2d 153 (Ill. 2008) (mandamus review of statutory duties and necessity of clear affirmative right)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (limits on creation of constitutionally protected liberty interests in prison disciplinary context)