Lucas v. Prisoner Review Board
2013 IL App (2d) 110698
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Shaun B. Lucas, a convicted sex offender, sought records (DOC clinical progress reports and a victim/fiancé "objection" letter) from the Prisoner Review Board (PRB) and Illinois DOC via FOIA to pursue a libel suit against the letter’s author.
- PRB denied access to clinical/mental-health reports under 20 Ill. Adm. Code §1610.30(b)(1)(A) & (b)(2) and cited FOIA §7(1)(a); DOC denied the objection letter under Corrections Code §3-5-1(b) and FOIA §7(1)(a).
- Lucas filed a four-count complaint seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and mandamus to obtain the records; defendants moved to dismiss under sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The trial court granted defendants’ combined motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; Lucas appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo and treated defendants’ showing that the records fell within FOIA exemptions as affirmative matter supporting a §2-619 dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC clinical/mental-health reports in the master file are disclosable under FOIA | Lucas: FOIA grants inmates access; Corrections statutes/regulations do not specifically prohibit access to master file records | Defendants: DOC regs and Corrections Code make master clinical records confidential and §1610.30(b)(2) bars direct inmate access; FOIA §7(1)(a) exempts them | Denied — reports exempt under DOC regs and Corrections Code; FOIA §7(1)(a) applies; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the victim/fiancé objection letter (and author’s name/address) must be disclosed | Lucas: Needs author’s identity/address to sue for libel and serve process; letter was part of his master file | Defendants: Redaction/exemption appropriate to protect safety; FOIA allows redaction when part of record is exempt; disclosure could endanger persons per FOIA §7(1)(d)(vi) and §1610.30(b)(1)(B) | Denied — redaction of identifying information proper to prevent risk of physical harm; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Lucas was entitled to appointed counsel or fee waiver | Lucas: Indigent and should have appointed counsel and fee relief | Defendants: No right to appointed counsel in civil FOIA/mandamus claims; fee waiver discretionary | Denied — no right to appointed counsel; trial court didn’t abuse discretion on fees |
| Whether PRB is a proper custodian for exemption arguments (i.e., is PRB a law enforcement/correctional agency) | Lucas: PRB lacks law enforcement powers so cannot hold law-enforcement records | Defendants: Statutes give PRB authority to maintain parole-related records and files | Denied — PRB has statutory authority to maintain such files; exemption arguments valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Meyer, 311 Ill. App. 3d 818 (2000) (FOIA access limited where Corrections Code/regulations provide specific restrictions)
- Newsome v. Prisoner Review Board, 333 Ill. App. 3d 917 (2002) (no right to appointed counsel in civil claims not affecting confinement)
- Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984) (appellant bears burden to preserve records when challenging sufficiency of evidence)
- Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396 (2009) (public body bears burden to prove FOIA exemption by clear and convincing evidence)
- Aurelius v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 384 Ill. App. 3d 969 (2008) (distinguishing §2-615 and §2-619 dismissal standards)
- Dear v. Locke, 128 Ill. App. 2d 356 (1970) (trial court discretion on leave to proceed as a poor person)