The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss (d/e 9) filed by Defendants Susan Suggs, Gregory Sims, and the Illinois Department of Corrections. The individual Defendants are sued in their individual capacity. Plaintiff Daro Weilburg filed the pending pro se Complaint (d/e 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials and the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), seeking injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
Weilburg alleges in Count I that the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference when they detained him beyond his release date due to their failure to properly credit him for the time he spent in custody prior to sentencing in Winnebago County, Illinois, Case No. 00-CF-3174. In Count II, Weilburg alleges that the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference when they held him in custody beyond his mandatory supervised release date of August 6, 2004, by miscalculating his custody and release dates. Weilburg alleges in Count III that the Defendants defamed him when they improperly characterized his theft offense (in Winnebago County, Illinois, Case No. 94-CF-2420) on the IDOC website. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is allowed.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Weilburg has attached copies of the following three documents to his Complaint: (1) a copy of an Order issued by the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in Winnebago County, Illinois, Case No. 94-CF-2420; (2) a copy of the Judgment entered, on August 6, 2004, in Case No. 00-CF-3174; and (3) a copy of a statement by the state's attorney describing the theft offense in Case No. 94-CF-2420. See Attachments to Complaint. The Defendants have not asked the Court to strike the documents: "A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). The Court therefore will consider the information set forth in the documents to analyze the instant Motion.
The allegations relating to Count I as set forth in the Complaint are as follows. Weilburg is a former inmate who was incarcerated at the Taylorville Correctional Center. He was sentenced to a 7-year term of imprisonment for theft in Case No. 94-CF-2420, and a 30-month term of imprisonment for a bail bond violation in Case No. 00-CF-3174, to be served consecutively. The aggregate sentence for the two offenses is nine and one-half years imprisonment. The Judgment entered in Case No. 00-CF- 3174 indicated that Weilburg was entitled to receive a credit of 382 days for time served in custody prior to sentencing.
On June 13, 2006, the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, Illinois, issued an order amending Weilburg's credit for time served prior to sentencing in Case No. 94-CF-2420. Weilburg was originally given a credit of 398 days for the time he spent in custody prior to his sentencing; the Circuit Court credited Weilburg with an additional 57 days, for a total credit of 455 days in Case No. 94-CF-2420.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to properly credit Weilburg for the time he was held in custody prior to his sentencing in Case No. 00-CF-3174. Weilburg alleges that, although the Defendants have credited him for the 455 days he was held in custody prior to sentencing in Case No. 94-CF-2420, they have failed to credit him for the 382 days he was held in custody prior to sentencing in 00-CF-3174. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants "did award [Weilburg] (310) days for what the Defendants label 'in continuous custody.'" Complaint, V ¶ 5.
The Complaint alleges that: "The Plaintiff moved to Arizona in May of 2000, he was arrested by the Arizona authorities on July 21, 2003, held in the Yauapai County Jail, the Mesa City Jail, the Maricopa County Jail, and the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma before returning to Rockford, IL. on October 1, 2003. The sentencing court took these dates into consideration when awarding Plaintiff (382) days credit for time served prior to sentencing in 00-CF-3174 on August 6, 2004." Complaint, V ¶ 6.
The Complaint asserts that, on June 3, 2006, Weilburg filed an "inmate request" complaining about the alleged calculation error. According to the Complaint, he filed a grievance against the Defendants on June 8, 2006, and another inmate request complaining about the calculation error on June 14, 2006. The Complaint alleges that, on June 28, 2006, Weilburg filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in state court, as well as a memorandum in support of the petition, basically claiming that the Defendants had failed to credit him for the 382 days he was held in custody prior to sentencing in Case No. 00-CF-3174. The Complaint asserts that Weilburg filed a motion for summary judgment. The Complaint states that on July 25, 2006, the Defendants moved to strike the premature summary judgment motion and to dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus. The Complaint states that, on July 27, 2006, Weilburg filed a response to the motion to dismiss. According to the Complaint, Weilburg filed a second motion for summary judgment on August 13, 2006. The Complaint states that the Defendants have not yet filed a response to the second motion for summary judgment.
The Complaint states that the Defendants' contention that Weilburg was "'in continuous custody' simultaneously on each case from October 1, 2003 until August 6, 2004, (310 days)" is wrong. Complaint, V ¶13. The Complaint further alleges: "Plaintiff [was not] in the custody of the Department of Corrections, he was held within the County of Yauapai, the City of Mesa and the County of Maricopa in the State of Arizona, he was also in the custody of the U.S. Marshalls [sic] at the F.T.C. in Oklahoma and the Winnebago County Jail in Illinois from July 21, 2003 until sentencing in 00-CF-3174 on August 6, 2004, (382 days) not (310 days) as the Defendants claim." Id. According to the Complaint, the Defendants were fully aware on July 17, 2006, that they had miscalculated Weilburg's "'in continuous custody date'". Id. at ¶ 15. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to comply with the mittimus issued in Case No. 00-CF-3174, thereby causing Weilburg to remain incarcerated beyond his actual release date. Id. at ¶ 16.
The allegations relating to Count II as set forth in the Complaint are as follows:
17. The Illinois Legislature promised plaintiff by statute that if he complied with the conditions placed upon him by the Department of Corrections that he would receive day for day good conduct credit. The Legislature also provided an additional 180 days of meritorious good time credits. Plaintiff's (7) year sentence and (21/2 ) year sentence imposed consecutively, became aggregated by the IDOC into a single sentence of (91/2 years.
18. The (91/2 ) year sentence would be statutorily complete after service of (4) years (3) months. Plaintiff was awarded (455 days) on the (7) year sentence for time served prior to sentencing on November 19, 1999, (as amended on June 13, 2006) in 94-CF-2420 and (382 days) on the (21/2 ) year sentence imposed on August 6, 2004 in 00-CF-3174. The IDOC computes ...