CHARLES F P. BOCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
MICHAEL F. O'LEARY and BRIAN FINK, Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois, Circuit No. 14-MR-1869. Honorable Cory D. Lund, Judge, Presiding.
For Charles Bocock, Appellant: Mr. Charles F.P. Bocock, Joliet, IL.
For Brian Fink, Michael F. O'Leary, Appellees: Mr. Philip A. Mock, Assistant State's Attorney, Mr. James Glasgow, State's Attorney, Joliet, IL.
JUSTICE O'BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Holdridge and Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion.
[¶1] Plaintiff, Charles F P. Bocock, brought a 21-count petition for mandamus against defendants, Michael F. O'Leary and Brian Fink, to enforce the provisions of the Illinois Department of Corrections County Jail Standards (county jail standards) (20 Ill. Adm. Code 701), which plaintiff alleged the Will County Detention Facility (detention facility) violated. The circuit court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
[¶3] Plaintiff is currently detained at the detention facility awaiting trial. While detained, plaintiff brought a petition for mandamus against the detention facility warden, Michael O'Leary, and the detention facility deputy chief, Brian Fink, alleging various violations of the county jail standards. Plaintiff alleged that the mandamus petition was brought " in an attempt to rectify violations of the *** County Jail Standards " promulgated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC).
[¶4] According to plaintiff, the conditions at the detention facility violated the county jail standards for the following reasons: (1) failure to provide detainees with " bath size towels" ; (2) failure to keep detention areas comfortably heated and cooled; (3) failure to provide shaving soap; (4) failure to provide barber and beautician services; (5) failure to provide sufficient quantity of food; (6) failing to serve meals at specified times; (7) failure to construct a preplanned meal menu; (8) failure to provide a diversified diet to inmates; (9) failure to provide an adequate supply of clean clothing; (10) failure to provide an unambiguous handbook of conduct constituting a penalty offense to detainees; (11) failure to provide detainees hearings before an impartial officer or committee; (12) failure to provide an area for interviews with an attorney arranged to ensure privacy; (13) failure to provide up-to-date informational and educational resources in the detainee
library; (14) charging detainees excessive prices for commissary items; (15) failure to utilize profits from the commissary for the welfare of detainees, and failure to document and account for such profits; (16) providing detainees with notice of disciplinary charges less than 14 hours before a hearing; (17) imposing penalties upon detainees prior to disciplinary hearings; (18) imposing segregation upon detainees without considering lesser penalties; (19) failure to remove all references to detainees' charges from their files; (20) failure to plan or schedule recreation or leisure time activities; and (21) failure to deliver mail promptly to detainees.
[¶5] In response, defendants filed a section 2-619 motion to dismiss (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(2) (West 2014)) plaintiff's mandamus petition. In the motion, defendants argued plaintiff lacked standing to bring his petition for mandamus because the statute granting the DOC the authority to promulgate the county jail standards (730 ILCS 5/3-15-2 (West 2014)) provides the Director of the DOC with the exclusive right to petition a court to enforce the county jail standards.
[¶6] Plaintiff did not respond to defendants' motion to dismiss, but did file a motion to strike defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff argued defendants were the proper party to name in his mandamus petition and not the Director of the DOC, because the Director's statutory obligation to inspect jails for compliance with the county jail standards was discretionary rather than mandatory. Thus, because the Director was not obligated to inspect the facility, the Director was not the proper defendant to name in his mandamus petition. According to plaintiff, ...