Hargarten v. Kochel

2020 IL App (4th) 190254-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: May 13, 2020
• Docket: 4-19-0254
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE FILED This order was filed under Supreme May 13, 2020 Coutt Rule 23 and may not be cited 2020 IL App (4th) 190254-U Carla Bender as precedent by any party except in 4 th Dist1ict Appellate the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l). NO. 4-19-0254 Comt, IL

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRIAN HARGARTEN, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Comi of V. ) Livingston County GREGORY KOCHEL, TROY DAVIS, ABERARDO ) No. 17MR67 SALINAS, SHARON SIMPSON, GUY PIERCE, ) MICHAEL MELVIN, SHERRY BENTON, and JOHN ) BALDWIN, ) Honorable Defendants-Appellees. ) Jennifer H. Bauknecht, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices DeAlmond and Cavanagh concmTed in the judgment.

ORDER

,i 1 Held: The appellate court affomed, concluding plaintiff failed to establish a due process violation .

,i 2 Plaintiff, Brian Hargaiien, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Depaiiment of

Conections (DOC), appeals from the trial comi 's denial of relief on his complaint against vai·ious

DOC officials and employees. On appeal, plaintiff ai·gues the administrative record of his prison

disciplina1y proceedings demonstrates he was denied due process during those proceedings. We

affnm.

,i 3 I. BACKGROUND

,i 4 According to DOC prison inmate search results, plaintiff is cmTently serving a 62-

year sentence for first degree murder and has a projected pai·ole date of November 21 , 2070. See

https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/Offender/pages/inmatesearch.aspx (last visited April 13, 2020); see also People v. Hargarten, 2014 IL App (1st) 122600-U, ¶ 34 (affirming plaintiff’s conviction

and sentence on direct review).

¶5 A. Complaint

¶6 In March 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to have disciplinary proceedings

which allegedly resulted in plaintiff’s loss of good conduct credit reviewed under a common-law

writ of certiorari. Plaintiff named the following DOC officials and employees as defendants:

Gregory Kochel, Troy Davis, Aberardo Salinas, Guy Pierce, Sharon Simpson, Michael Melvin,

Sherry Benton, and John Baldwin. Plaintiff raised multiple claims of error concerning the

disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff alleged his due process rights were violated where he was not

permitted to review a letter he authored.

¶7 B. Motion to Dismiss

¶8 In November 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. In

March 2018, the trial court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed them to file a

responsive pleading.

¶9 C. Answer

¶ 10 In June 2018, defendants filed as their answer a copy of the administrative record

of the disciplinary proceedings. The administrative record contained, in part, the following: an

inmate disciplinary report, a written statement plaintiff prepared for an adjustment committee

hearing, an adjustment committee’s final summary report, a grievance plaintiff filed following the

adjustment committee hearing, a grievance officer report denying plaintiff’s grievance, and a letter

ruling on plaintiff’s appeal from the denial of his grievance. The following is gleaned from the

administrative record.

-2- 111 On Februa1y 25, 2016, plaintiff, who was then imprisoned at Pontiac Correctional

Center (Pontiac) , was served with an inmate disciplinary report authored by Gregory Kochel.

According to the report, on February 24, 2016, Kochel intercepted an outgoing letter authored by

plaintiff, a self-admitted member of the Ambrose security threat group, or gang, at Pontiac.

Plaintiff was attempting to send the letter through a third party to a fellow Ambrose member who

was housed at Menard Correctional Center (Menard). The letter indicated a third Ambrose member

who was housed at Menard was "all good," meaning the member had been cleared of any

wrongdoing by the Ambrose and Latin Folk security threat groups. Based on the letter, the inmate

disciplinary report indicated plaintiff had violated DOC regulation 205, which prohibits security

threat group or unauthorized organizational activity. See 20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.Appendix A (No.

205), amended at 27 Ill. Reg. 6214 (eff. May 1, 2003).

1 12 Prior to an adjustment committee hearing, plaintiff prepared a written statement. In

the statement, plaintiff, in part, (1) denied being a member of any security threat group, (2) asserted

the ;,all good" language in the letter he authored was taken out of context and in fact referred to

his cousin who was not incarcerated and was recovering from gunshot wounds, (3) requested the

adjustment committee read the entire letter so the uall good " language could be considered in

context, and (4) asserted withholding Uthe full totality of the letter is a violation of due process as

offender's letter in totality did not consist of merely [two] words."

113 On March 7, 2016, plaintiff was served with a fmal summa1y report from the

adjustment committee, which consisted of chairman Troy Davis and member Aberardo Salinas.

According to the report, plaintiff appeared before the adjustment committee for a hearing on March

1, 2016. The disciplinary report was read, plaintiff pleaded not guilty, and plaintiff's written

-3- statement was submitted. Plaintiff admitted he was trying to write another inmate at Menard but

asserted the letter was taken out of context. The adjustment committee was satisfied the violation

occurred as reported and recommended, in part, revocation of one year of good conduct credit.

Guy D. Pierce, the chief administrative officer, approved the adjustment committee’s

determinations.

¶ 14 On March 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a grievance raising multiple complaints

concerning the disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff argued, in part, the “[adjustment] committee ***

committed a violation of offender’s due process” by refusing his requests to produce the letter. In

the factual background of his grievance, plaintiff alleged, after receiving the inmate disciplinary

report, he requested the letter be presented at the adjustment committee hearing. Plaintiff also

alleged the adjustment committee refused to produce the letter during the hearing despite his

request.

¶ 15 In June 2016, Sharon Simpson, a grievance officer, issued a grievance officer’s

report recommending plaintiff’s grievance be denied. Michael Melvin, the chief administrative

officer who succeeded Pierce, concurred with Simpson’s recommendation. Plaintiff appealed to

the DOC’s director, and the matter was referred to its administrative review board.

¶ 16 In December 2016, Sherry Benton, a member of the administrative review board,

issued a letter to plaintiff informing him the board was reasonably satisfied he committed the

offense and his claims of due process were unsubstantiated. John Baldwin, the acting director of

the board, concurred with the board’s decision.

¶ 17 D. Briefs in Support of the Disciplinary Proceedings

¶ 18 In October 2018, defendants filed a brief in support of the disciplinary proceedings,

-4- arguing, in part, plaintiff received the due process to which he was entitled throughout the

disciplinary proceedings. In December 2018, plaintiff filed a responding brief, arguing, in part, he

was denied due process where the letter was not produced despite his requests.

¶ 19 E. Denial of Relief

¶ 20 In April 2019, the trial court entered a docket entry denying plaintiff’s “petition”

for certiorari review. The court found, after reviewing the administrative record of the disciplinary

proceedings, plaintiff received the due process to which he was entitled throughout the disciplinary

proceedings.

¶ 21 This appeal followed.

¶ 22 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 23 On appeal, plaintiff argues the administrative record of his prison disciplinary

proceedings demonstrates he was denied due process during those proceedings. Defendants

disagree.

¶ 24 In his complaint, defendant sought to have the disciplinary proceedings reviewed

under a common-law writ of certiorari as he believed, in part, his due process rights were violated

during those proceedings. A common-law writ of certiorari is a method for obtaining judicial

review of administrative actions when the statute conferring power on the agency does not

expressly adopt the Administrative Review Law (ARL) (735 ILCS 5/3-101 to 3-113 (West 2016))

and provides for no other form of review. Fillmore v. Taylor, 2019 IL 122626, ¶ 67, 137 N.E.3d

779. Because the statutes concerning prison disciplinary proceedings neither adopt the ARL nor

provide another form of review, “properly pled allegations of a denial of due process in prison

disciplinary proceedings are reviewable in an action for certiorari.” Id.

-5- 125 After denying defendants' motion to dismiss, the trial court directed defendants to

file a responsive pleading, which caused defendants to file the administrative record of the prison

disciplinary proceedings. "[A] common-law writ of certiorari ' bring[s] before the court issuing it

the record of the inferior tribunal for review' *** so that the court can determine from the record

*** whether the agency acted within its statutory authority and in accordance with the law. "

Fillmore v. Taylor, 2017 IL App (4th) 160309, 174, 80 N.E.3d 835 (quoting Barden v. Junior

College District No. 520, 132 Ill. App. 2d 1038, 1038, 271 N.E.2d 680, 681 (1971)) , rev'd in part

on other grounds, 2019 IL 122626. By its actions, the trial court in this case effectively issued the

writ of certiorari and brought the record of the ptison disciplinary proceedings before it to consider

plaintiff's due process claim.

126 The ttial court "denied" plaintiff's "petition" for certiorari review, finding, after its

review of the administrative record, plaintiff received the due process to which he was entitled

during the disciplinary proceedings. In those cases where a trial court issues a writ of certiorari

and then reviews the record from the infetior tribunal, the court should enter either of two

judgments: (1) dismiss the certiorari count and quash the writ if it is dete1mined the infetior

tribunal acted within its statutory authority and its actions were consistent with the law or (2) quash

the proceedings of the inferior tribunal if it determines the agency lacked statut01y authority or its

actions were inconsistent with the law. Id. 1 75. By its actions, the trial court in this case effectively

dismissed the certiorari count and quashed the w1it based on its determination plaintiff received

the due process to which he was entitled throughout the disciplinary proceedings.

127 On appeal, plaintiff contends, contrary to the findings of the administrative agency

and the trial court, a review of the administrative record demonstrates he was denied due process

-6- where he was not permitted to review the letter he authored. This court treats an appeal from a trial

court's ruling on a writ of certiorari as it would any administrative review appeal-we review the

decision of the agency rather than the decision of the trial court. Outcom, Inc. v. Illinois

Department of Transportation, 233 Ill. 2d 324, 337, 909 N.E.2d 806,814 (2009). Further, an issue

of law, such as whether an inmate received the due process to which he or she is entitled during a

disciplinary proceeding, is reviewed denovo. Thomas v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2014 IL App

(1st) 122402, 1 38, 24 N.E.3d 245.

! 28 An inmate who may lose good conduct credit as a result of a disciplinary

proceeding is entitled to certain due process guarantees. Fillmore, 2019 IL 122626, ! 57. The

inmate must receive:

"(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges, (2) an

opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and

correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary

evidence in his defense, and (3) a written statement by the fact finder

of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. "

Id. (citing Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974)).

Additionally, the findings of the disciplinaiy board "must be supported by some evidence in the

record" to comport with due process. Id.

! 29 Plaintiff's sole argument on appeal for why he believes he was denied due process

during the disciplinary proceedings relates to the fact he was not permitted to review the letter he

authored. In support of his argument, plaintiff relies on the supreme court's recent decision in

Fillmore, which reversed and remanded for further proceedings on an inmate 's claim suggesting

-7- prison officials violated his due process rights by denying him the opportunity to present witnesses

and documentary evidence. Id. ¶ 60.

¶ 30 Fillmore does not support plaintiff’s position. In that case, the supreme court was

tasked with determining whether the inmate had sufficiently pled, for purposes of surviving a

section 2-615 motion to dismiss, a due process violation based on an alleged denial of the inmate’s

witness and evidence requests. Id. ¶¶ 60-64. In this case, we are tasked with determining whether

plaintiff has established a due process violation based solely on the fact he was not permitted to

review a letter he authored.

¶ 31 Under the circumstances of this case, we are unconvinced the denial of plaintiff’s

request to review the letter he authored amounts to a due process violation. Plaintiff did not deny

authoring the letter or including the “all good” language in the letter. Rather, the issue in dispute

during the adjustment committee hearing was the meaning behind the “all good” language.

Plaintiff was permitted to submit a written statement in support of his interpretation. Ultimately,

the adjustment committee was presented with two interpretations of the language and found against

plaintiff’s interpretation. After our review, we agree with both the trial court and the administrative

agency—plaintiff has failed to establish a due process violation.

¶ 32 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 33 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 34 Affirmed.

-8-