NOTICE FILED This order was filed under Supreme 2020 IL App (4th) 190521-U July 28, 2020 Court Rule 23 and may not be cited Carla Bender as precedent by any party except in NO. 4-19-0521 4th District Appellate the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JESSE M. HATCH, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Sangamon County JOHN R. BALDWIN, SHERRY BENTON, and ) No. 18MR542 KEVIN KINK, ) Defendants-Appellees. ) Honorable ) Brian T. Otwell, ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action because plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
¶2 In July 2018, plaintiff, Jesse M. Hatch, a prisoner in the Illinois Department of
Corrections (Department), filed a complaint against defendants, John R. Baldwin, acting director
of the Department, Sherry Benton, member of the Administrative Review Board, and Kevin Kink,
warden of Lawrenceville Correctional Center, in which he made numerous allegations surrounding
an event that occurred in February 2017, when he relinquished his fan in order to obtain his
typewriter. He was required to do so in order to comply with a prison policy that forbade him from
having more than five electrical equipment items in his possession.
¶3 In December 2018, defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss Hatch’s
complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2016)), arguing dismissal was proper because Hatch had, in fact, exceeded the allowed
number of electrical equipment items pursuant to the Department’s administrative directive No.
05.10.115 (eff. Dec. 1, 2015) (hereafter “Directive”). Defendants also asserted that dismissal was
appropriate because Hatch’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Defendants further
argued that they could not be held liable for denying Hatch’s grievances because inmates do not
have a constitutional right to a grievance process. Finally, defendants argued the complaint should
be dismissed because Hatch had failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he was entitled to
relief on any of his claims.
¶4 In June 2019, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. This appeal
followed. On appeal, Hatch argues the trial court erred by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss
because (1) Hatch pleaded a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, (2) material facts
were in dispute, and (3) defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity. Hatch also argues the
court erred by denying Hatch’s motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.
¶5 I. BACKGROUND
¶6 In July 2018, Hatch filed a complaint in which he claimed defendants (1) violated
his constitutional rights and (2) breached their statutory duties. He alleged that upon arrival at
Lawrence Correctional Center in October 2016 from Stateville Correctional Center, he was
allowed the following personal property: (1) a watch, (2) a calculator, (3) an electric shaver, (4) a
fan, (5) trimmers, and (6) a television. In November 2016, he also was allowed a hot pot.
¶7 According to the complaint, in February 2017, Hatch received a notice that a
typewriter was available for him in “Personal Property.” When Hatch went to retrieve the
typewriter, a corrections officer processing his personal property told him that he possessed “more
than the five allowable contract/permit items” in violation of the Department’s Directive. (We
-2- note for the sake of clarity that Hatch continually refers to the items as “contract/permit” items
and, although the Directive does label some items as “permit” items, the Directive makes no further
distinction between these items and other items contained in the Directive.) The officer told Hatch
that he would have to surrender one of his items to be able to receive the typewriter. Because it
was winter, Hatch chose to relinquish his fan in exchange for the typewriter. Hatch informed the
officer that he intended to file a grievance because he “had not exceeded the 5 allowable contract
items described in AD #05.10.115.” Later in February 2017, Hatch filed a grievance requesting
the return of his fan and the abolition of the “policy of issuing contracts for non-contract/permit
items, and counting those non-contract/permit items toward the 5 allowed contract permit items.”
¶8 Hatch further alleged that between September 2017 and January 2018, he
proceeded through the grievance process starting with his counselor and ending with the
administrative review board, thereby exhausting his administrative remedies. Ultimately, his
grievance was denied.
¶9 Hatch attached numerous exhibits to his complaint. A series of documents titled
“Personal Property Contract” described Hatch’s watch, calculator, electric shaver, fan, trimmers,
television, and typewriter, as well as certain rules that Hatch would have to abide by in relation to
the property. Another attachment was a copy of the Directive which stated, in part: “An offender
may possess a combination of one each of any five of the following equipment items.” The
Directive then listed a fan, television, radio, cassette player, Walkman, MP3 player, beard trimmer,
calculator, clip on light, hot pot, electric shaver, and typewriter. Finally, Hatch attached the
decisions of the various Department personnel he dealt with during the grievance process.
¶ 10 Hatch’s complaint contained four counts. First, Hatch claimed that defendants
breached their statutory duty and violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal
-3- protection of the law. Second, Hatch claimed that defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2016)) because defendants refused to return
his fan despite his hypertension. Third, Hatch claimed that defendants subjected Hatch to cruel
and unusual punishment by not returning his fan, resulting in him suffering “extreme heat related
illness.” Fourth, Hatch requested declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of (1) a
determination that the Directive had been wrongly enforced against him, (2) the return of his fan,
and (3) an injunction preventing defendants from denying him the use of his fan while his action
proceeded.
¶ 11 In December 2018, defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss pursuant to
section 2-619.1 of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2016). Defendants argued that dismissal
was proper because Hatch had, in fact, exceeded the allowed number of electrical items pursuant
to the Directive. Defendants also asserted that dismissal was appropriate because Hatch’s claims
were barred by sovereign immunity. Defendants further argued that they could not be held liable
for denying Hatch’s grievances because inmates do not have a constitutional right to a grievance
process. Finally, defendants argued the complaint should be dismissed because Hatch had failed
to allege sufficient facts to show that he was entitled to relief on any of his claims.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE FILED This order was filed under Supreme 2020 IL App (4th) 190521-U July 28, 2020 Court Rule 23 and may not be cited Carla Bender as precedent by any party except in NO. 4-19-0521 4th District Appellate the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JESSE M. HATCH, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Sangamon County JOHN R. BALDWIN, SHERRY BENTON, and ) No. 18MR542 KEVIN KINK, ) Defendants-Appellees. ) Honorable ) Brian T. Otwell, ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action because plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
¶2 In July 2018, plaintiff, Jesse M. Hatch, a prisoner in the Illinois Department of
Corrections (Department), filed a complaint against defendants, John R. Baldwin, acting director
of the Department, Sherry Benton, member of the Administrative Review Board, and Kevin Kink,
warden of Lawrenceville Correctional Center, in which he made numerous allegations surrounding
an event that occurred in February 2017, when he relinquished his fan in order to obtain his
typewriter. He was required to do so in order to comply with a prison policy that forbade him from
having more than five electrical equipment items in his possession.
¶3 In December 2018, defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss Hatch’s
complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2016)), arguing dismissal was proper because Hatch had, in fact, exceeded the allowed
number of electrical equipment items pursuant to the Department’s administrative directive No.
05.10.115 (eff. Dec. 1, 2015) (hereafter “Directive”). Defendants also asserted that dismissal was
appropriate because Hatch’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Defendants further
argued that they could not be held liable for denying Hatch’s grievances because inmates do not
have a constitutional right to a grievance process. Finally, defendants argued the complaint should
be dismissed because Hatch had failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he was entitled to
relief on any of his claims.
¶4 In June 2019, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. This appeal
followed. On appeal, Hatch argues the trial court erred by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss
because (1) Hatch pleaded a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, (2) material facts
were in dispute, and (3) defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity. Hatch also argues the
court erred by denying Hatch’s motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.
¶5 I. BACKGROUND
¶6 In July 2018, Hatch filed a complaint in which he claimed defendants (1) violated
his constitutional rights and (2) breached their statutory duties. He alleged that upon arrival at
Lawrence Correctional Center in October 2016 from Stateville Correctional Center, he was
allowed the following personal property: (1) a watch, (2) a calculator, (3) an electric shaver, (4) a
fan, (5) trimmers, and (6) a television. In November 2016, he also was allowed a hot pot.
¶7 According to the complaint, in February 2017, Hatch received a notice that a
typewriter was available for him in “Personal Property.” When Hatch went to retrieve the
typewriter, a corrections officer processing his personal property told him that he possessed “more
than the five allowable contract/permit items” in violation of the Department’s Directive. (We
-2- note for the sake of clarity that Hatch continually refers to the items as “contract/permit” items
and, although the Directive does label some items as “permit” items, the Directive makes no further
distinction between these items and other items contained in the Directive.) The officer told Hatch
that he would have to surrender one of his items to be able to receive the typewriter. Because it
was winter, Hatch chose to relinquish his fan in exchange for the typewriter. Hatch informed the
officer that he intended to file a grievance because he “had not exceeded the 5 allowable contract
items described in AD #05.10.115.” Later in February 2017, Hatch filed a grievance requesting
the return of his fan and the abolition of the “policy of issuing contracts for non-contract/permit
items, and counting those non-contract/permit items toward the 5 allowed contract permit items.”
¶8 Hatch further alleged that between September 2017 and January 2018, he
proceeded through the grievance process starting with his counselor and ending with the
administrative review board, thereby exhausting his administrative remedies. Ultimately, his
grievance was denied.
¶9 Hatch attached numerous exhibits to his complaint. A series of documents titled
“Personal Property Contract” described Hatch’s watch, calculator, electric shaver, fan, trimmers,
television, and typewriter, as well as certain rules that Hatch would have to abide by in relation to
the property. Another attachment was a copy of the Directive which stated, in part: “An offender
may possess a combination of one each of any five of the following equipment items.” The
Directive then listed a fan, television, radio, cassette player, Walkman, MP3 player, beard trimmer,
calculator, clip on light, hot pot, electric shaver, and typewriter. Finally, Hatch attached the
decisions of the various Department personnel he dealt with during the grievance process.
¶ 10 Hatch’s complaint contained four counts. First, Hatch claimed that defendants
breached their statutory duty and violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal
-3- protection of the law. Second, Hatch claimed that defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2016)) because defendants refused to return
his fan despite his hypertension. Third, Hatch claimed that defendants subjected Hatch to cruel
and unusual punishment by not returning his fan, resulting in him suffering “extreme heat related
illness.” Fourth, Hatch requested declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of (1) a
determination that the Directive had been wrongly enforced against him, (2) the return of his fan,
and (3) an injunction preventing defendants from denying him the use of his fan while his action
proceeded.
¶ 11 In December 2018, defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss pursuant to
section 2-619.1 of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2016). Defendants argued that dismissal
was proper because Hatch had, in fact, exceeded the allowed number of electrical items pursuant
to the Directive. Defendants also asserted that dismissal was appropriate because Hatch’s claims
were barred by sovereign immunity. Defendants further argued that they could not be held liable
for denying Hatch’s grievances because inmates do not have a constitutional right to a grievance
process. Finally, defendants argued the complaint should be dismissed because Hatch had failed
to allege sufficient facts to show that he was entitled to relief on any of his claims.
¶ 12 Defendants also asserted Hatch did not identify the statutory duty that defendants
allegedly breached and failed to explain what liberty interest he had in possessing a fan or other
property that could support his due process claim. In addition, defendants argued that Hatch failed
to allege he was a member of a protected class or that the prison treated him less favorably than
other similarly situated prisoners, thus failing to state an equal protection claim. Defendants further
argued that Hatch was not subjected to cruel or unusual punishment because he did not allege facts
that showed an extreme deprivation of humane conditions of confinement that put him at
-4- immediate risk of serious harm or that they acted with deliberate indifference to such a risk.
¶ 13 Hatch filed a motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss. Hatch argued that
defendants intentionally mischaracterized his complaint by stating that he possessed “too many
‘electrical items’ ” and “too many ‘electrical devices.’ ” Hatch reiterated he was not over the limit
of “5 contract/permit items.”
¶ 14 In June 2019, the trial court created a docket entry in which it denied Hatch’s
motion to strike and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
¶ 15 This appeal followed.
¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 17 On appeal, Hatch argues the trial court erred by granting defendants’ motion to
dismiss because (1) he pleaded a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, (2) material
facts were in dispute, and (3) defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity. Hatch also
argues the court erred by denying his motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants
first argue that because Hatch attached exhibits to his complaint acknowledging that he, in fact,
had more than the maximum allowed electrical equipment items, Hatch failed to state a claim for
which relief could be granted. Because we agree with defendants’ first argument, we need not
address defendants’ remaining arguments.
¶ 18 A. The Law
¶ 19 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Hatch’s complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1
of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2016) (allowing combined motions to dismiss)). A section
2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent
on its face. Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31, 976 N.E.2d 318.
A section 2-619 motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint but asserts
-5- affirmative matter which defeats the claim. Id. Review under either section 2-615 or section 2-619
is de novo. See id.
¶ 20 Under section 2-615, the critical question is whether the facts alleged in the
complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and taking all well-pleaded facts and
all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts as true, are sufficient to state a cause
of action upon which relief may be granted. Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC, 2013 IL
App (4th) 120139, ¶ 25, 988 N.E.2d 984. This court has described these motions as a defendant
saying, “So what? The facts the plaintiff has pleaded do not state a cause of action against me.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. (quoting Winters v. Wangler, 386 Ill. App. 3d 788, 792,
898 N.E.2d 776, 779 (2008)). Id.
¶ 21 Exhibits attached to a complaint become part of it and must be considered. Allen v.
Clark County Park District Board of Commissioners, 2016 IL App (4th) 150963, ¶ 16, 67 N.E.3d
536. In evaluating a motion to dismiss, “[w]here an inconsistency between the factual allegation
and the exhibit arises, the exhibit controls over the factual allegations in the pleading.” Mars, Inc.
v. Heritage Builders of Effingham, Inc., 327 Ill. App. 3d 346, 355, 763 N.E.2d 428, 437 (2002).
¶ 22 B. This Case
¶ 23 Hatch’s claims all arise out of his belief that he was erroneously deprived of either
his fan or his typewriter in violation of the Directive. The Directive states that “[a]n offender may
possess a combination of one each of any five of the following equipment items” and then lists the
following: (1) fan, (2) television, (3) AM/FM radio, (4) AM/FM radio cassette player,
(5) Walkman, (6) MP3 Player, (7) beard trimmer, (8) calculator, (9) clip on light, (10) hot pot,
(11) electric shaver, and (12) typewriter. However, Hatch attached exhibits to his complaint which
establish that he, in fact, had too many electrical equipment items. Those exhibits control “over
-6- the factual allegations in the pleading.” Id.; see also In re Marriage of Van Ert, 2016 IL App (3d)
150433, ¶ 14, 54 N.E.3d 928.
¶ 24 Hatch was never entitled to more than five of the items listed in the Directive.
Because Hatch, according to his own pleadings, was not deprived of something to which he was
entitled, he failed to articulate an injury. Based upon the information contained in Hatch’s
complaint and the attached exhibits, we conclude that Hatch has failed to state a cause of action.
Thus, we find the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
¶ 25 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 26 For the reasons stated, we affirm.
¶ 27 Affirmed.
-7-