{
  "id": 5316923,
  "name": "Richard Black, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Black v. State",
  "decision_date": "1981-10-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 80-CC-1134",
  "first_page": "292",
  "last_page": "295",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 292"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 347,
    "char_count": 5265,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.884,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6897460044967872
    },
    "sha256": "3a745d0e11b6ac5f6cb2f707c97bcf48ef592383990d42615dc75935cebc1f50",
    "simhash": "1:6130c4d6164e3e51",
    "word_count": 850
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:43.791876+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Richard Black, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holderman, J.\nClaimant, an inmate of Stateville Correctional Center, filed a claim seeking to recover $1,262.29 in damages for the conversion of his personal property by agents of Respondent.\nIn late February 1979, the population of cell house F, of which Claimant was a resident, was transferred to cell, house B-east so that an inspection could be made. Thereafter on March 1, 1979, the cells in F house were searched.\nBefore going to B house, Claimant and his two cell mates packed all of their property into five boxes. When they returned to their cell, they found the five boxes gone and Claimant\u2019s television set would not work.\nClaimant admitted that on March 1, 1979, the institution delivered to him a shakedown record form on which were listed the items removed from the cell and for which Claimant has filed this law suit. All of the items, now missing, were listed under the heading, \u201cContraband or Items in Excess of Authorized Limits.\u201d\nThe form contained the following instructions:\n\u201cThe above listed personal items in excess of authorized limits or not permitted have been placed in the custody of the Property Control employee. It is your responsibility to advise that employee, in writing, within ten (10) days of return to your cell if you wish to have these items sent home or disposed of.\u201d\nClaimant did not comply with the above instructions to advise the property control employee whether he wanted the items sent to his home or disposed of.\nOn March 9, 1979, he wrote a letter to the assistant warden Marie Hall telling her the property was missing.\nClaimant takes the position that because he is serving a sentence of 100 years, he has no home other than Stateville and that therefore the provision of the Department of Corrections administrative regulations \u201cSearches for and Control of Contraband,\u201d section K, subparagraphs 1-4 should have applied to his case. Under section K, entitled \u201cDisposal of Excess Personal Property Confiscated as Contraband,\u201d it states as follows:\n\u201c2. Exceptions may be made only in the case of a resident who has no known family or friends; safe storage must then be provided.\u201d\nParagraph 4 of the same section states:\n\u201cIf the resident indicates his intent to grieve (AR 845) the confiscation of excessive authorized personal property, such property shall be secured at the institution until the grievance procedure is completed.\u201d\nIt is Claimant\u2019s contention that because of the length of his sentence he should be considered to be without a home other than Stateville. Despite this fact, he did maintain contact with his family in Chicago.\nOn July 11, 1979, Claimant\u2019s grievance was heard and was found to have \u201cno substance.\u201d The institutional inquiry board found as follows:\n\u201cFINDINGS:\nThe Board finds that this resident\u2019s grievance has no substance.\nThe basis for this finding is: No records of any claimed items being removed from cell.\u201d\nIt is clear that the property, instead of being secured until the grievance procedure was completed, was dispersed and already unrecoverable as of the date of the grievance hearing.\nThe evidence discloses that on March 19, 1979, the institution shipped to Claimant\u2019s father a carton of books. However, none of these books belonged to Claimant. When Claimant and his two cell mates put their property in the five boxes, their property was intermingled.\nThe institution, by a memorandum directed to the residents dated March 2, 1979, acknowledged there were complaints concerning the handling of personal property.\nNone of Claimant\u2019s property, including his television set, has ever been returned to him. Some of his books were put in the institution library.\nRespondent, by arbitrarily dispersing Claimant\u2019s property before the conclusion of his grievance hearing, violated subparagraph 4, section K, of the Department of Correction\u2019s regulations for disposing of excess personal property.\nWhile it is true that Claimant did not comply specifically with the directions contained in the shakedown record form, his letter to assistant warden Hall was in effect the initiation of a grievance. The institution recognized that fact by setting up a special committee to hear grievances from the inmates. There was also no justification to arbitrarily dispose of a resident\u2019s property before his complaint was heard.\nClaimant\u2019s exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 established the purchase of books amounting to $398.65 and a letter from his father, dated April 6, 1978, establishes the delivery to Claimant of relatively expensive sporting equipment. In addition, Claimant\u2019s television set, turned over to an agent of respondent for repairs, was never returned to him.\nClaimant\u2019s claim that he should be awarded $1,117.07 for his property does not allow for depreciation.\nIt is the opinion of the commissioner hearing this case, after hearing all the evidence in said cause, that damages should be in the amount of seven hundred ($700.00) dollars.\nAn award is hereby entered in favor of Claimant in the amount of ($700.00) dollars.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holderman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard Black, pro se, for Claimant.",
      "Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 80-CC-1134\nRichard Black, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed October 22, 1981.\nRichard Black, pro se, for Claimant.\nTyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0292-01",
  "first_page_order": 450,
  "last_page_order": 453
}