{
  "id": 3046443,
  "name": "Kenneth Stephenson, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stephenson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1991-08-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 87-CC-0678",
  "first_page": "208",
  "last_page": "211",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 208"
    }
  ],
  "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": 311,
    "char_count": 5051,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.888,
    "sha256": "b0020dba82edf73bc001814e7b80120febb9a9f2bf58483c613de313d902ef21",
    "simhash": "1:3224c0bf54f99d32",
    "word_count": 815
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:29.978535+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kenneth Stephenson, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nBurke, J.\nClaimant, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, seeks damages from Respondent, State of Illinois, for the value of personal property claimed to have been lost by Claimant through the fault or neglect of Respondent or its agents. Claimant alleges a loss of $136.83 for his watch, three towels, stereo cassette player and headphones, five shag rugs and one pair of shoes.\nOn the day of the incident in question, Claimant was assigned to A Gallery, South Cellhouse, Pontiac Correctional Center. He was released from his cell by Respondent\u2019s agent. When he returned to his cell, he found that the cell was open and had been entered. A search had been conducted of his cell. Claimant made a list of the missing property. Subsequently, Claimant alleges that he saw portions of his personal property in the possession of an inmate being escorted by Respondent\u2019s agents to segregation. Claimant intervened and requested that Respondent\u2019s agent permit Claimant to go to his cell and produce the permits and receipts to prove that the property in possession of the inmate being escorted to segregation was, indeed, the property of the Claimant. Respondent\u2019s agent allegedly did not permit Claimant to obtain his property from the inmate. Claimant testified that when absent from his cell, he did not have any knowledge of who entered his cell. Claimant testified that he knew his door was placed on deadlock and that, in that event, the door had to be \u201ckeyed\u201d open. Claimant later observed specific items of his personal property in possession of another inmate. The Timex quartz watch, the three green towels, the stereo cassette player and headphones, the five shag rugs and Claimant\u2019s shoes were in the possession of another inmate. This fact was brought to the attention of Respondent\u2019s agents. Claimant endeavored to use self-help in retrieving his property from the inmate in whose possession it was found. Respondent\u2019s agents intervened and permitted the inmate to retain possession of Claimant\u2019s property.\nThe valuations claimed by Claimant on his lost property consisted of $30.00 for the watch, $5.36 each for three towels, $45.00 for the stereo cassette player and headphones, $5.00 each for the five shag rugs, and $20.75 for Claimant\u2019s shoes. These were purchase prices of the lost property. Claimant testified he had only had the watch a couple of months before it was missing, the green towels were brand new, the stereo cassette had never been taken out of the box, and Claimant had never bought batteries for it. His shoes were six months old.\nThe evidence in this case fails to demonstrate that Claimant\u2019s property came into exclusive possession of Respondent. Thus, no bailment was shown to have existed and Respondent was not, therefore, required to assume the burden of proving due care for the Claimant\u2019s property. The thrust of Claimant\u2019s argument seems to be that Respondent\u2019s agent was negligent in failing to conduct an investigation as to the rightful ownership of property later seen in possession of another inmate. Claimant made demand upon an officer in custody of the inmate to \u201cwait\u201d while Claimant demonstrated his rightful ownership of property then in possession of the inmate under the officer\u2019s control. We know of no principle of law which would require corrections officers to adjudicate or mediate disputes between inmates regarding the ownership of property in possession of one or the other. Indeed, it is just as reasonable to expect that a correctional officer in the discharge of his duties cannot involve himself in prolonged debates between inmates, however just the position of one or the other may be, and act as an arbitrator or adjudicator with respect to these arguments and complaints. The Court is aware that internal procedures exist whereby complaints of inmates against correctional personnel or other inmates can be heard and decided in an orderly fashion. Claimant\u2019s argument that the failure of Respondent\u2019s agents to allow him time to \u201cprove his case\u201d constitutes negligence is without merit. No bailment was shown to exist and no negligence on the part of Respondent\u2019s agents was shown.\nWherefore, it is ordered that this claim is denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Burke, J."
      },
      {
        "text": "ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING\nBurke, J.\nThis cause coming to be heard upon the Claimant\u2019s petition for rehearing and the Court being fully advised in the premises, wherefore, pursuant to section 790.220 of the Court of Claims Regulations states that the request for rehearing \u201cshall state briefly the points supposed to have been overlooked or misapprehended by the Court.\u201d That the request filed herein does not do this.\nIt is hereby ordered that Claimant\u2019s petition for rehearing is hereby denied.",
        "type": "rehearing",
        "author": "Burke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth Stephenson, pro se, for Claimant.",
      "Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Darrell Williamson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 87-CC-0678\nKenneth Stephenson, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed August 8, 1991.\nOrder on motion for rehearing filed February 20, 1992.\nKenneth Stephenson, pro se, for Claimant.\nRoland W. Burris, Attorney General (Darrell Williamson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0208-01",
  "first_page_order": 316,
  "last_page_order": 319
}