{
  "id": 4306305,
  "name": "MASON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COMMISSARY DEPARTMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Commissary Department of the Department of Corrections",
  "decision_date": "2011-03-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201410\u20140044",
  "first_page": "1135",
  "last_page": "1138",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "407 Ill. App. 3d 1135"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "661 N.E.2d 1186",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 Ill. App. 3d 1053",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1172422
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/277/1053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a71983",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 347,
    "char_count": 5879,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.14500980559098234
    },
    "sha256": "1eae9218fe9eee2e402b5267972566b0f823411bd23703b85aa4f85dce70ed17",
    "simhash": "1:0f6b903698d49b67",
    "word_count": 932
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:37:05.247121+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MASON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COMMISSARY DEPARTMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.\nJustices Turner and Appleton concurred in the judgment and opinion.\nOPINION\nIn July 2009, plaintiff, Mason Williams, pro se filed a complaint pursuant to section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 (1994)). In January 2010, the trial court dismissed Williams\u2019 complaint, noting that Williams\u2019 complaint was frivolous and lacked \u201cany arguable basis in law or fact.\u201d Williams appeals that dismissal, and we affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn May 1994, while serving an 18-year prison sentence, a jury convicted Williams of two counts of aggravated battery on a correctional officer (720 ILCS 5/12\u20144(b)(6) (West 1992)). The trial court thereafter sentenced Williams to 10 years in prison on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. In February 1996, we affirmed Williams\u2019 conviction and sentences. People v. Williams, 277 Ill. App. 3d 1053, 661 N.E.2d 1186 (1996).\nSince our opinion in Williams was published in February 1996, Williams has filed the following civil appeals, expressing dissatisfaction in one way or another with his prison accommodations, all of which this court or the federal courts have rejected:\nA. Cases Filed in This Court\n\u2022 Williams v. Walker, No. 4\u201405\u20140448 (June 13, 2006) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (prisoner civil rights claim);\n\u2022 Williams v. Dallas, No. 4\u201406\u20141102 (December 21, 2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (prisoner mandamus petition);\n\u2022 Williams v. Health Care Services, No. 4\u201406\u20141101 (December 28, 2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (prisoner claim against prison health-care providers);\n\u2022 Williams v. Illinois Department of Corrections, No. 4\u201410\u20140128 (February 18, 2011) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (prisoner mandamus petition).\nB. Cases Filed in Federal Court\n\u2022 Williams v. Snyder, No. 00\u2014cv\u201401372 (C.D. Ill. 2000) (petition for writ of habeas corpus (general)) filed November 1, 2000, and closed November 6, 2000;\n\u2022 Williams v. Mote, No. 04\u2014cv\u201401208 (C.D. Ill. 2004) (petition for writ of habeas corpus (prison conditions)) filed June 29, 2004, and closed July 29, 2004;\n\u2022 Williams v. McAdory, No. 04\u2014cv\u201401438 (C.D. Ill. 2005) (prisoner civil rights claim) filed December 23, 2004, and closed January 18, 2005;\n\u2022 Williams v. Mote, No. 04\u2014cv\u201401439 (C.D. Ill. 2005) (prisoner civil rights claim) filed December 23, 2004, and closed January 20, 2005;\n\u2022 Williams v. Walker, No. 05\u2014cv\u201401004 (C.D. Ill. 2005) (prisoner civil rights claim) filed January 4, 2005, and closed January 18, 2005;\n\u2022 Williams v. Wexford Health Care Service, No. 06\u2014cv\u201401105 (C.D. Ill. 2006) (prisoner civil rights claim) filed April 21, 2006, and closed May 2, 2006;\n\u2022 Williams v. Attorney General of the State of Illinois, No. 06\u2014cv\u201401199 (C.D. Ill. 2006) (petition for writ of habeas corpus (general)) filed August 7, 2006, and closed August 8, 2006;\n\u2022 Williams v. Mahone, No. 10\u2014cv\u201401289 (C.D. Ill. 2010) (petition for writ of habeas corpus (prison conditions)) filed September 23, 2010, and closed October 8, 2010.\nC. The Current Case\nIn July 2009, Williams pro se filed a complaint pursuant to section 1983, alleging that defendants, Commissary Department of the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC), Pontiac Correctional Center, the Illinois Governor, and various DOC employees, violated his rights by (1) limiting his spending at the prison commissary and (2) restricting him from enjoying sufficient consumption of radio, television, and magazines. In January 2010, the trial court dismissed Williams\u2019 complaint with prejudice, noting that Williams\u2019 complaint was frivolous and lacked \u201cany arguable basis in law or fact.\u201d\nThis appeal followed.\nII. WILLIAMS\u2019 CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED\nWilliams pro se appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint. Specifically, Williams contends that the court erred by dismissing his complaint because prison officials violated his rights by (1) limiting his spending at the prison commissary and (2) restricting him from enjoying sufficient consumption of radio, television, and magazines. Defendants respond that Williams\u2019 claims (1) are time-barred, (2) have not been fully exhausted administratively, and (3) are, in any event, substantively meritless. Defendants\u2019 points are well taken. As previously outlined, Williams\u2019 current appeal is yet another in a long line of frivolous appeals, lacking any arguable basis in law or fact.\nIn short, it appears that Williams, in an effort to occupy his time while incarcerated, has been engaged in what can best be described as \u201clitigation for sport.\u201d This court intends to stop Williams\u2019 frivolous litigation or, at a minimum, make him pay for continuing his abuse of the courts.\nBecause we conclude that Williams\u2019 current claims are as merit-less as they have been for much of the last decade, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment. As part of our judgment, we direct Williams to show cause within 30 days why sanctions should not be entered against him under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). Until such time as (1) Williams responds to this order and (2) this court determines what action to take, we direct the clerk of this court to disregard \u2014 and by that we mean to not file \u2014 any new appeals submitted to this court by Williams.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mason Williams, of Pontiac, appellant pro se.",
      "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Evan Siegel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MASON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COMMISSARY DEPARTMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201410\u20140044\nOpinion filed March 30, 2011.\nRehearing denied April 22, 2011.\nMason Williams, of Pontiac, appellant pro se.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Evan Siegel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "1135-01",
  "first_page_order": 1151,
  "last_page_order": 1154
}