2015 IL App (3d) 130728

Opinion filed June 23, 2015 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2015 

RONALD RUHL, ROBERT HERNANDEZ )

and DOUGLAS OAKS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

)

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 12th Judicial Circuit, 

Will County, Illinois. 

Appeal No. 3-13-0728 

Circuit No. 12-MR-1674 

Honorable Roger Rickmon, 

Judge, Presiding.

_____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices Holdridge and Wright concurred in the judgment and opinion.

 OPINION

¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Ronald Ruhl, Robert Hernandez and Douglas Oaks, inmates incarcerated in the 

Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the 

DOC in the Will County circuit court. The complaint alleged that the DOC had been 

overcharging plaintiffs for goods sold at the prison commissary in violation of section 3-7-2a of 

the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a (West 2008)). 

¶ 2 The DOC filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil 

Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2012)), arguing that the inmates lacked 

standing to enforce section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code against it. 
2 

¶ 3 The trial court granted the DOC’s motion to dismiss.

¶ 4 Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that this court’s recent decision in Jackson v. Randle, 2011 IL 

App (4th) 100790, is flawed and they do, in fact, have standing to enforce the relevant statutory 

provision. 

¶ 5 We affirm. 

¶ 6 FACTS

¶ 7 In August 2012, Ruhl, an inmate in the DOC’s custody incarcerated at the Stateville 

Correctional Center in Joliet, filed a complaint for mandamus relief against the DOC. Ruhl 

alleged that the DOC had been “illegally” overcharging him for goods sold at the prison 

commissary by marking up the price of those goods beyond the percentage price caps outlined in 

section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code (730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a (West 2008)). Section 3-7-2a allows an 

additional charge of up to 35% for tobacco products and up to 25% for nontobacco products. 

According to Ruhl, the Illinois Auditor General determined in a report that the DOC had been 

exceeding the statutorily-allowed maximum markup on goods sold to inmates by 9% in its prison 

commissaries since November 1, 2005. He alleged that the DOC’s failure to comply with 

section 3-7-2a had resulted in its “illegal procurement” of $576.62 from his inmate trust fund 

account. 

¶ 8 Ruhl’s petition further asserted that he had attempted to seek relief for the DOC’s 

violation through various avenues. He initially sought relief through the prison’s grievance 

process, which ultimately resulted in the Administrative Review Board finding “no merit” to his 

grievance. Next, he sought “a remedy through the Illinois Court of Claims” that he alleged 

resulted in a rejection over subject matter jurisdiction, with a final ruling issued on May 8, 2012. 
3 

Finally, Ruhl alleged that he had “contacted several different government agencies” for 

assistance in compelling the DOC to comply with section 3-7-2a, all to no avail. 

¶ 9 As for relief, Ruhl’s petition sought a ruling that the DOC’s actions in exceeding the 

allowed statutory markup on commissary items was unlawful as contrary to the language of 

section 3-7-2a. He requested the court enter an order: (1) compelling the DOC to comply with 

section 3-7-2a; (2) crediting his inmate trust fund account with all “illgotten funds” since 

November 1, 2005; and (3) compelling payment of all his costs and fees. 

¶ 10 The DOC moved to dismiss Ruhl’s complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code 

(735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2012)). The DOC contended that inmates lacked standing to 

enforce section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code. It explained that in Jackson v. Randle, 2011 IL App 

(4th) 100790, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal of an inmate’s complaint, nearly 

identical to Ruhl’s, on the basis that inmates lack standing to enforce the percentage price caps 

for commissary goods outlined in section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code against the DOC. Ruhl 

opposed the motion to dismiss, to which the DOC responded. 

¶ 11 During briefing on the DOC’s motion to dismiss, plaintiffs Hernandez and Oaks, also 

inmates in the DOC’s custody incarcerated at the Stateville Correctional Center, each filed 

complaints for mandamus relief against the DOC nearly identical to the petition filed by Ruhl. 

The allegations in Oaks’ and Hernandez’s complaints mirrored those in Ruhl’s with the 

exception that neither Oaks nor Hernandez alleged they had pursued an action in the Court of 

Claims or sought the assistance of other governmental agencies in compelling the DOC’s 

compliance. 

¶ 12 Oaks alleged that the DOC illegally procured more than $361 from his inmate trust fund 

account, while Hernandez alleged that more than $537 had been illegally procured from his 
4 

inmate trust fund account. Both Oaks and Hernandez sought relief identical to Ruhl’s. The 

DOC separately moved to dismiss Oaks’ petition for the same reasons it sought dismissal of 

Ruhl’s. 

¶ 13 In April of 2013, Ruhl moved to consolidate Oaks’ and Hernandez’s cases with his “as a 

matter of judicial economy and convenience” because their complaints were “essentially 

identical” to his. Ruhl sought consolidation to “avoid all parties submitting essentially the same 

filings, arguments, etc., and the court issuing multiple rulings on this same matter.” Oaks and 

Hernandez supported Ruhl’s motion to consolidate by affidavits, each averring that he was in 

favor of the consolidation “for reasons of judicial economy and convenience.” On April 25, 

2013, the trial court consolidated the three cases. 

¶ 14 The trial court heard argument on the DOC’s motion to dismiss in June and July of 2013. 

On July 25, 2013, the court stated that it had “to grant the motion to dismiss” though it did not 

“necessarily agree with the rationale of the Jackson court.” The court further stated that it had 

“given [its] preliminary determination” and that it would “issue a written opinion”, but that the 

“appeal time starts to run when I issue and sign a written order, so right now there is no 30 days 

running.” 

¶ 15 Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2013. 

¶ 16 On December 31, 2013, the trial court entered a two-page order, noting the actions had 

been consolidated and recounting the parties’ arguments. The court granted the DOC’s motion 

to dismiss, reasoning that under the rationale of Jackson, section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code did 

not confer upon plaintiffs the right to challenge the DOC’s policies or commissary prices.

¶ 17 ANALYSIS
5 

¶ 18 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting the DOC’s motion to dismiss, where 

plaintiffs did have standing to enforce section 3-7-2a and the Fourth District’s decision in 

Jackson is contrary to our supreme court’s decision in Hadley v. Illinois Department of 

Corrections, 224 Ill. 2d 365 (2007). We disagree. 

¶ 19 Section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

“If a facility maintains a commissary or commissaries serving 

inmates, the selling prices for all goods shall be sufficient to cover 

the costs of the goods and an additional charge of up to 35% for 

tobacco products and up to 25% for non-tobacco products. The 

amount of the additional charges for goods sold at commissaries 

serving inmates shall be based upon the amount necessary to pay 

for the wages and benefits of commissary employees who are 

employed in any commissary facilities of the Department. The 

Department shall determine the additional charges upon any 

changes in wages and benefits of commissary employees as 

negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement. *** 

Items purchased for sale at any such commissary shall be 

purchased, wherever possible, at wholesale costs. If a facility 

maintains a commissary or commissaries as of the effective date of 

this amendatory Act of the 93rd General Assembly, the 

Department may not contract with a private contractor or vendor to 

operate, manage, or perform any portion of the commissary 

services. The Department may not enter into any such contract for 
6 

commissary services at a facility that opens subsequent to the 

effective date of this amendatory Act of the 93rd General 

Assembly.” 730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a (West 2008). 

¶ 20 First, we note that plaintiffs brought their complaint in the form of a mandamus petition. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is granted to enforce the performance of a public 

officer’s official nondiscretionary duties as a matter of right. Rodriguez v. Illinois Prisoner 

Review Board, 376 Ill. App. 3d 429, 433 (2007). For mandamus to issue, a plaintiff must 

establish material facts that demonstrate: (1) his clear right to the requested relief; (2) a clear 

duty on the defendant to act; and (3) clear authority existing in the defendant to comply with an 

order granting mandamus relief. Id. at 433-34. We review orders dismissing a petition for 

mandamus and orders granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) 

de novo. See id. at 434; Lacey v. Village of Palatine, 232 Ill. 2d 349, 359 (2009). 

¶ 21 According to the State, whether plaintiffs have a clear right to the relief they request turns 

on whether or not they have standing to enforce the percentage price caps for commissary goods 

outlined in section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code. “Generally, the doctrine of standing is designed 

to ‘preclude persons who have no interest in a controversy from bringing suit.’ ” Jackson v. 

Randle, 2011 IL App (4th) 100790, ¶ 14 (quoting Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211, 221 

(1999)). 

¶ 22 As the State points out, both in its motion to dismiss and on appeal, the Jackson court 

recently decided this exact issue. While Jackson did not seek relief through a mandamus

petition, his arguments were identical to plaintiffs’ here, i.e., the DOC overcharged him and 

other inmates in violation of section 3-7-2a of the Unified Code. 730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a (West 

2008); Jackson, 2011 IL App (4th) 100790, ¶ 16. The Jackson court rejected this argument, 
7 

stating that section 3-7-2a “does not expressly confer standing on inmates—or anyone else, for 

that matter—to enforce the cost percentages outlined therein.” Id. 

¶ 23 Relying heavily on Ashley v. Snyder, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1252, 1258-59 (2000), the Jackson

court went on to note that DOC regulations and the Unified Code were designed to provide 

guidance to prison officials in the administration of prisons, not to create more rights for inmates 

than those that are constitutionally required. “Inmates have a constitutional right to adequate 

water, shelter, food, drinking water, clothing, sanitation, and medical care, personal safety, 

reasonable access to courts, and the reasonable opportunity to exercise religious freedom.” 

Jackson, 2011 IL App (4th) 100790, ¶ 17 (citing Ashley, 316 Ill. App. 3d at 1258-59). 

Conspicuously absent from this list is an inmate’s right to commissary items at a specific price, 

or commissary items generally. 

¶ 24 Plaintiffs make a sweeping reference to due process, arguing that the notion that inmates 

do not have standing to enforce the statute “defies the basic principles of common law and due 

process.” To the extent that this constitutes a due process argument, it is easily dispelled. In 

Duane v. Hardy, 2012 IL App (3d) 110845, ¶¶ 14-15, this court held that plaintiff had no 

enforceable rights under section 3-7-2(c), which plaintiff argued entitled him to one hour out-ofcell exercise daily. The court noted that “[p]rison regulations, including statutory provisions, do 

not confer rights on inmates or provide a basis for an inmate’s constitutional claims.” Id. ¶ 15 

(citing Dupree v. Hardy, 2011 IL App (4th) 100351, ¶¶ 25-26). Furthermore, and relying on 

Jackson, 2011 IL App (4th) 100790, ¶ 17, the Duane court found that because plaintiff was not 

entitled under the statute to one hour of daily exercise out of his cell, he cannot claim a due 

process violation based on the DOC’s alleged failure to provide him notice and an opportunity to 

be heard before he is deprived of the claimed right. Duane, 2012 IL App (3d) 110845, ¶ 16. 
8 

¶ 25 We find no reason to deviate from the holding of Jackson. We similarly find that 

plaintiffs here have no constitutionally protected rights to commissary items at a specified price, 

nor does section 3-7-2a function to create one. Indeed, they have no right to a commissary at all, 

where the creation and maintenance of a prison commissary falls completely within the 

discretion of the DOC. See 730 ILCS 5/3-7-2a (West 2012). Plaintiffs failed to establish a clear 

right to the relief requested; therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing their mandamus

petition. 

¶ 26 Finally, we reject plaintiffs’ claim that Jackson is contrary to our supreme court’s 

decision in Hadley v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 224 Ill. 2d 365 (2007). In Hadley, the 

plaintiff took issue with the DOC’s interpretation of section 3-6-2(f) of the Unified Code, which 

exempts an “ ‘indigent’ ” inmate from a $2 copayment for nonemergency medical and dental 

treatment, providing for recoupment of such copayment against an inmate’s current or future 

funds in his inmate trust account. (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 372-73 (quoting 730 ILCS 5/3-6-

2(f) (West 2004)). To implement the provisions of section 3-6-2(f), the DOC adopted certain 

administrative rules. Id. at 373. Our supreme court concluded that the DOC’s definition of “ 

‘indigent’ ” prisoner within its administrative rules conflicted with the Unified Code. Id. at 376. 

¶ 27 Hadley is thus easily distinguishable from the case at bar, where we are not confronted 

with administrative rules or definitions that conflict with the Unified Code. Furthermore, the 

court’s analysis was limited to the statutory interpretation issue; there was no argument or 

discussion regarding standing or whether the Code provided an inmate with an enforceable cause 

of action. The holding of Jackson regarding section 3-7-2a is thus not contrary to our supreme 

court’s decision in Hadley. 
9 

¶ 28 We, accordingly, find that the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ mandamus

petition. 

¶ 29 CONCLUSION

¶ 30 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.

¶ 31 Affirmed.