Find Legal Information

No. 3--00--0832
November 08, 2001

____________________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2001

____________________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the Opinion of the court:

____________________________________________________________________________________

Jesse Hatch was an inmate in the Stateville CorrectionalCenter when he submitted a pro se petition asking the court toissue a writ of mandamus.⁽¹⁾ In his petition, Hatch alleged thatZenon Szymanski, Stateville's superintendent in charge of theprison's industry program, had an official duty to consider Hatchfor a job in either the prison's garment shop or furniture shop. The State moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state acause of action. 735 ILCS 5/2--615(a) (West 2000). The circuitcourt granted the motion. On appeal, Hatch argues that the courterred by granting the State's motion to dismiss because hispetition stated a cause of action for mandamus relief. Hatchalso asserts, for the first time on appeal, that he is entitledto monetary damages. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Szymanski oversaw the Stateville Correctional Centerindustries program, which consisted of a soap shop, a furnitureshop, and a garment shop. In May 1997, Hatch submitted a writtenrequest to Szymanski for a prison job assignment with theprogram. In this request, Hatch stated that he had previous woodworking experience and that he had worked in the garment shopprior to having been transferred out of Stateville for a periodof time. In July 1997, Hatch spoke with Szymanski, whoacknowledged receipt of Hatch's written request and advised himthat there was a waiting list of at least two years for jobs inthe industries program.

In December 1997, Hatch was placed in disciplinarysegregation at the prison and his name was taken off the waitinglist for the industries program. After going through theprison's grievance procedure, Hatch's disciplinary violation wasexpunged from his record. However, his name was not placed backon the industries program's waiting list.

Hatch submitted another written grievance requesting a jobin the furniture shop or the garment shop in May 1999. Inresponse, the prison's grievance officer recommended that Hatch'sname be placed back on the waiting list in the position itoccupied as of May 1997.

Hatch was interviewed by the soap shop's supervisor inNovember 1999. He was told that the only position available atthat time was as a janitor in the soap shop. He declined thisjob offer, claiming that the chemicals used in the soapmanufacturing process were harmful to his health because of hisallergies and hypertension.

After refusing the janitorial position, Hatch wrote a letterto Szymanski explaining that, although he had been offered thisjob, he never had expressed an interest in working in the soapshop. His letter reiterated that he had experience working withwood and had previous experience working in the garment shop. Hatch again asked that he be considered for a job at either thefurniture shop or the garment shop. Szymanski did not respond tothis letter.

On May 5, 2000, Hatch petitioned the circuit court pro sefor a writ of mandamus to require Szymanski to follow theprison's administrative procedures and to hire him in either thefurniture shop or the garment shop. On August 24, 2000, theState filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to statea cause of action. The record does not include a transcript orany other account of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. Inthe court's order, dated September 28, 2000, the judge indicatedthat after a hearing on the matter, the State's motion wasgranted and Hatch's petition was dismissed. It is from thisjudgment that Hatch appeals.

Additional facts will be discussed as they pertain toindividual issues.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion to Dismiss

A party to a civil action may raise objections to a pleadingand move that the court dismiss the action. 735 ILCS 5/2--615(a)(West 2000).

The issue presented by a section 2--615 motion to dismissfor failure to state a cause of action is whether the petitionerhas alleged sufficient facts in the petition that, if proved,would entitle the petitioner to relief. All well-pleaded factsin the petition are to be taken as true, but any conclusionsdrawn from the facts as alleged should be disregarded by thetrial court. A motion to dismiss should be granted by the trialcourt only if the petitioner can prove no set of facts to supportthe cause of action asserted. An appellate court must assess thepetition in the light most favorable to the non-moving partyunder de novo review. Kaiser v. Fleming, 315 Ill. App. 3d 921,735 N.E.2d 144 (2000).

Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy to enforce, as amatter of right, the performance of official duties by a publicofficial where the official is not exercising discretion. Acourt will not grant a writ of mandamus unless the petitioner candemonstrate a clear, affirmative right to relief, a clear duty ofthe official to act, and clear authority in the official tocomply with the writ. The writ will not lie when its effect isto substitute the court's judgment or discretion for theofficial's judgment or discretion. Mandamus relief, therefore,is not appropriate to regulate a course of official conduct or toenforce the performance of official duties generally. Givot v.Orr, 321 Ill. App. 3d 78, 746 N.E.2d 810 (2001). An exception tothis general rule, however, is that mandamus will lie to preventa clear abuse of discretion or to control the exercise ofdiscretion in a manner consistent with the applicable rule oflaw. People ex rel. Collins v. Young, 83 Ill. App. 2d 312, 227N.E.2d 524 (1967).

The Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) shall, in sofar as possible, employ prison inmates at useful work. 730 ILCS5/3--12--1 (West 2000). The DOC may establish and maintainindustries in which inmates may be trained and employed. 730ILCS 5/3--12--2 (West 2000). The DOC shall establish industrialproduction at its institutions to secure the most practical andefficient use of labor. The office in charge of industrialproduction shall assign its personnel to direct the production ofgoods and shall employ inmates assigned by the prison's chiefadministrative officer. 730 ILCS 5/3--12--6 (West 2000).

The prison's chief administrative officer may designate anassignment officer to make recommendations concerning programassignments. 20 Ill. Adm. Code