2020 IL App (3d) 190267
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Jacob Pitts, a pretrial detainee at Kankakee County jail, filed a complaint for mandamus against the jail director seeking: barber services, adequate law-library/legal resources per 20 Ill. Adm. Code 701, and a bar on using removal of correspondence/legal materials as disciplinary sanctions.
- An evidentiary hearing was held: both Pitts and Director testified; two jail videos and the County Jail Standards were admitted.
- Director testified Pitts was housed in disciplinary segregation (Max C) for violent incidents; the jail provides barbering tools (no on‑site barber), legal resources via wall kiosks and cart computers, and screens mail but does not withhold it as discipline.
- Pitts testified his property (pen/paper/legal work) was removed after infractions, trimmer guards were stolen making haircuts impossible in Max C, and the booking‑area computer lacked up‑to‑date materials and jury instructions.
- The trial court found the restrictions reasonable and necessary, credited the Director’s testimony and videos showing Pitts’s violence, ruled the jail complied with the County Jail Standards, denied mandamus, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural fairness of the hearing (Boose/shackles/informal procedure) | Trial court failed to hold a Boose hearing, used an "informal" procedure, did not admit exhibits properly, and issued an incomplete ruling | Hearing was a standard evidentiary proceeding; court had discretion to order the sequence of testimony; Pitts did not object; any Boose error harmless | Court: hearing proper; no reversible procedural error; any failure to hold Boose hearing was harmless because mandamus relief was not warranted |
| Whether jail must provide a barber (701.100(b)(4)) | "Barber services" requires access to a barber; Max C restrictions and missing trimmer guards denied Pitts access to grooming | Regulation allows provision of barbering services consistent with security; providing tools satisfies the standard; theft of guards not director's mandatory duty | Court: "barber services" does not mandate an on‑site barber; director met the standard by providing tools; mandamus inappropriate |
| Adequacy of legal resources and applicability of 730 ILCS 5/3‑8‑7 | Jail failed to provide up‑to‑date legal materials and jury instructions; 3‑8‑7 prohibits disciplinary restrictions on access to legal materials | Jail provided required materials via kiosks and cart computers; 3‑8‑7 governs DOC inmates, not county detainees | Court: trial court credited Director; available resources met 701.230; 3‑8‑7 inapplicable to county detainee |
| Removal/restriction of correspondence and legal materials (701.180(h)) | Jail took Pitts’s pen/paper/legal materials as discipline in violation of standards | Items may be temporarily removed to clean cell after infractions and were returned; mail screening complies with standards | Court: evidence supported Director's account; no prohibited disciplinary denial of mail or legal materials; mandamus denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Boose, 66 Ill.2d 261 (1977) (procedures for assessing shackling in court proceedings)
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill.2d 342 (2006) (manifest‑weight standard and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill.2d 21 (2009) (statutory interpretation principles — consider plain meaning and give effect to every word)
- People v. Lindsey, 199 Ill.2d 460 (2002) (distinguishing applicability of Unified Code provisions to county detainees vs. DOC inmates)
- Turner‑El v. West, 349 Ill. App.3d 475 (2004) (mandamus cannot compel discretionary acts)