Opinion ID: 3004561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Armato’s Claims Fail on the Merits

Text: Armato’s claims fail on the merits because IDOC officials complied with the handwritten Agreed Order entered on February 18, 2010, and Armato never challenged the dispositive nature of the order. The Agreed Order, prepared by the Assistant Public Defender and signed by the sentencing judge, expressly stated, “Mr. Armato shall be released from the Department of Corrections, without a term of MSR, on Friday, May 28, 2010.” Armato was in fact released one week earlier without a term of MSR on May 21, 2010. This court reviews the effect of an Illinois state judgment by looking to state law. See DeGuelle v. Camilli, 724 F.3d 933, 937 (7th Cir. 2013) (Federal courts are required “to give state court judgments the same preclusive effect that the state courts that issued the judgments would give them.”). Under Illinois law, the meaning of an agreed order “should be determined by the language chosen by the parties.” Clark v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 386 N.E.2d 890, 896 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979). Here, the plain language of the February 18, 2010, Agreed Order stated that Armato should be released on May 28, 2010. To elaborate: [A]n agreed order is conclusive on the parties and can not be amended or set aside by one of the parties 12 No. 13-1995 without a showing that the order resulted from fraudulent representation, coercion, incompetence of one of the parties, gross disparity in the position or capacity of the parties, or newly discovered evidence. Olsen v. Staniak, 632 N.E.2d 168, 173 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). Armato has not provided arguments or authority challenging the agreed order or requesting it be amended. Instead, Armato points to the two typed judgments also entered on February 18, 2010, to show that his release date was earlier than May 28, 2010. The two judgments stated that Armato would receive certain credit to be included in his sentence. The district court found that these two typed orders were of “little consequence.” We are compelled to agree. The two typed judgments were not labeled “Agreed” and do not indicate any knowledge or participation on behalf of Armato or the state in their construction. The district court accurately noted, “On February 18, 2010, the judge, the prosecutor, and the public defender [representing Armato] were only absolutely certain of one thing—that Armato was to be released on May 28, 2010.” While the first portion of the Agreed Order mentions that Armato shall receive credit for time served, nothing in the Agreed Order indicated that the explicit date for Armato’s release listed on the page should be further modified. The plain, unambiguous language of the agreed order clearly set a release date for May 28, 2010, and the defendants did not detain Armato beyond that date. Since IDOC officials fully complied with the terms of the court’s order, Armato did not suffer any injury. No. 13-1995 13