{ "id": 4271912, "name": "ISAAC BRIGGS, a/k/a Josef DuPree, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROGER E. WALKER, JR., Director, the Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Briggs v. Walker", "decision_date": "2007-09-05", "docket_number": "No. 4-06-0454", "first_page": "849", "last_page": "851", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "375 Ill. App. 3d 849" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "151 N.E.2d 324", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Ill. 2d 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2771007 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/14/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "case_ids": [ 1163675 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "376-77", "parenthetical": "prison and work assignments are discretionary with the corrections administration" }, { "page": "376-77", "parenthetical": "no jurisdiction to review discretionary matters of the IDOC" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-ct-cl/52/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "570 N.E.2d 402", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403" }, { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 Ill. App. 3d 6", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2600368 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "8" }, { "page": "8" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/212/0006-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 N.E.2d 809", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "810", "parenthetical": "Fourth District" }, { "page": "810-12", "parenthetical": "rejecting similar arguments" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 Ill. App. 3d 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5438261 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148-51", "parenthetical": "Fourth District" }, { "page": "149-51" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/111/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "970 F.2d 211", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10514213 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/970/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "572 F. Supp. 1385", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3603896 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1388" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/572/1385-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 364, "char_count": 5801, "ocr_confidence": 0.78, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.370710586428907e-08, "percentile": 0.27451330174075783 }, "sha256": "52a2f9c40cd93ca63e12f2d6a1958f34321101d8b618680b9e62a9f6fc23e455", "simhash": "1:93743d094284fcd4", "word_count": 903 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:53:12.225665+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ISAAC BRIGGS, a/k/a Josef DuPree, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROGER E. WALKER, JR., Director, the Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE COOK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn 2002, plaintiff, Isaac Briggs, was convicted of aggravated kidnapping (720 ILCS 5/10 \u2014 2(a)(7) (West 2002)) while armed with a firearm, a Class X felony, and Briggs is currently serving a 10-year sentence in a medium-security facility. In 2005, Briggs requested that he be transferred to a minimum-security facility and be allowed to participate in a work- and day-release program offered by the minimum-security facility. Briggs\u2019 request was denied. In January 2006, Briggs filed a pro se motion for a preliminary injunction (735 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 102 (West 2006)), requesting that the trial court compel the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) to transfer Briggs to the minimum-security facility and allow Briggs to participate in the work- and day-release program. The trial court held a telephone hearing, denied the motion, and dismissed the case. Defendant appeals. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.\nI. BACKGROUND\nBriggs is currently serving a 10-year sentence for aggravated kidnapping (with a firearm) at Pickneyville Correctional Center (Pickneyville), which is a medium-security facility. Pickneyville has a policy that an inmate may request consideration for a transfer after six months. Pickneyville also has a policy that an inmate may request work release if he is \u201celigible.\u201d IDOC\u2019s rules provide that an inmate is \u201celigible\u201d for work release if the inmate is not serving a sentence for kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, or any Class X felony. 20 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7455.30 (Conway Greene CD-ROM June 2003). Pickneyville\u2019s policy allows inmates who have been denied work release to reapply after three months, provided the reason for the denial was not due to the nature of the offense, among other restrictions.\nIn November 2005, Briggs requested that he be transferred to a minimum-security facility and be allowed to participate in a work- and day-release program offered by the minimum-security facility. Briggs\u2019 request was denied due to his felony classification.\nIn January 2006, Briggs filed a pro se motion for a preliminary injunction herein, requesting that the trial court compel the IDOC\u2019s director, Roger Walker, to transfer Briggs to the minimum-security facility and allow Briggs to participate in the work- and day-release program. Briggs\u2019 primary argument was that it was in the \u201cbest interest of society\u201d that the injunction be granted. Apparently, Briggs would like to earn money for his family, including his minor child, who is currently residing with Briggs\u2019 wife, and Briggs\u2019 parents, who are in poor health.\nThe trial court held a hearing over the telephone and denied \u2018Briggs\u2019 motion for an injunction. This appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nBriggs makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying Briggs\u2019 motion for an injunction; (2) the trial court erred in dismissing Briggs\u2019 claim of entitlement to transfer and participation in the work-release program; and (3) the trial judge should have recused himself. We do not address Briggs\u2019 individual arguments and dismiss Briggs\u2019 case for lack of jurisdiction.\nWe do not have jurisdiction to hear Briggs\u2019 request to transfer prisons and participate in the work-release program. A prisoner has no constitutional right, no liberty or property interest entitled to due-process protection, to participate in a work-release program. See Watts v. Morgan, 572 F. Supp. 1385, 1388 (N.D. Ill. 1983); DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d 211, 213 (7th Cir. 1992); see also, for example, a related Illinois case, Williams v. Thompson, 111 Ill. App. 3d 145, 148-51, 443 N.E.2d 809, 810 (1982) (Fourth District) (reversing a preliminary injunction requiring prison officials to allow inmates to complete vocational training programs, for lack of right to participate in said programs). Likewise, neither the provisions in the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) nor the Illinois Constitution, each of which propounds general policies of rehabilitation and restoration to useful citizenship, creates an entitlement to participate in the work-release program. See Williams, 111 Ill. App. 3d at 149-51, 443 N.E.2d at 810-12 (rejecting similar arguments); 730 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 1\u20142 (West 2006) (concerning restoration to useful citizenship); 730 ILCS 5/3\u2014 7 \u2014 1 (West 2006) (requiring the IDOC to promulgate rules in compliance with the Unified Code); Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a711. Instead, whether a prisoner may participate in a work-release program is a matter of discretion solely for the IDOC. See People u. Lego, 212 Ill. App. 3d 6, 8, 570 N.E.2d 402, 403 (1991); Hyche v. State of Illinois, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 375, 376-77 (1999) (prison and work assignments are discretionary with the corrections administration).\nCourts are not to intervene in matters within the discretion of the IDOC, including the location of where inmates are assigned and housed. Lego, 212 Ill. App. 3d at 8, 570 N.E.2d at 404, citing People v. Fowler, 14 Ill. 2d 252, 151 N.E.2d 324 (1958); see also Hyche, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 376-77 (no jurisdiction to review discretionary matters of the IDOC). As such, ruling on Briggs\u2019 request to transfer and participate in the work-release program would exceed the scope of our authority.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the aforementioned reasons, we dismiss Briggs\u2019 case for lack of jurisdiction.\nDismissed.\nAPPLETON and MYERSCOUGH, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE COOK" } ], "attorneys": [ "Isaac Briggs, of Pinckneyville, appellant pro se.", "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gary S. Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Mary E. Welsh, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ISAAC BRIGGS, a/k/a Josef DuPree, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROGER E. WALKER, JR., Director, the Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.\nFourth District\nNo. 4-06-0454\nOpinion filed September 5, 2007.\nIsaac Briggs, of Pinckneyville, appellant pro se.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gary S. Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Mary E. Welsh, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0849-01", "first_page_order": 865, "last_page_order": 867 }