ILCS » Chapter 730 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 (2026)

Disciplinary Procedures

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(730 ILCS 5/3-8-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 1003-8-7)
    Sec. 3-8-7. Disciplinary Procedures.)
    (a) All disciplinary action shall be consistent with this Chapter. Rules of behavior and conduct, the penalties for violation thereof, and the disciplinary procedure by which such penalties may be imposed shall be available to committed persons.
    (b)(1) Corporal punishment and disciplinary restrictions on diet, medical or sanitary facilities, mail or access to legal materials are prohibited.
    (2) (Blank).
    (3) (Blank).
    (c) Review of disciplinary action imposed under this Section shall be provided by means of the grievance procedure under Section 3-8-8. The Department shall provide a disciplined person with a review of his or her disciplinary action in a timely manner as required by law.
    (d) All institutions and facilities of the Department of Corrections shall establish, subject to the approval of the Director, procedures for hearing disciplinary cases except those that may involve the imposition of disciplinary segregation and isolation; the loss of good time credit under Section 3-6-3 or eligibility to earn good time credit.
    (e) In disciplinary cases which may involve the imposition of disciplinary segregation and isolation, the loss of good time credit or eligibility to earn good time credit, the Director shall establish disciplinary procedures consistent with the following principles:
        (1) Any person or persons who initiate a disciplinary
    
charge against a person shall not determine the disposition of the charge. The Director may establish one or more disciplinary boards to hear and determine charges.
        (2) Any committed person charged with a violation of
    
Department rules of behavior shall be given notice of the charge including a statement of the misconduct alleged and of the rules this conduct is alleged to violate.
        (3) Any person charged with a violation of rules is
    
entitled to a hearing on that charge at which time he shall have an opportunity to appear before and address the person or persons deciding the charge.
        (4) The person or persons determining the disposition
    
of the charge may also summon to testify any witnesses or other persons with relevant knowledge of the incident.
        (5) If the charge is sustained, the person charged is
    
entitled to a written statement of the decision by the persons determining the disposition of the charge which shall include the basis for the decision and the disciplinary action, if any, to be imposed.
        (6) (Blank).
(Source: P.A. 97-1083, eff. 8-24-12.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Charles Donelson v. Randy Pfister, 811 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Charles Donelson v. Randy Pfister, 811 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2016). “Donelson also argues that an Illinois statute governing disciplinary proceedings, 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7, is unconstitutional. Donelson failed to make this argument in the district court.”
Arnett v. Snyder, 769 N.E.2d 943 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 3× “" Plaintiffs' complaint alleged the policy violated section 3-8-7 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 (West 1996) (effective until June 1, 1997)), the eighth amendment (U.”
Knox v. Godinez, 2012 IL App (4th) 110325 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff’s second-amended complaint rested on the allegation his disciplinary reports from June 1, 1997, to the present were void and in violation of his due-process rights and state-created liberty and property interests because DOC conducted his disciplinary proceedings under…”
Rodriguez v. Illinois Prisoner Review Bd., 876 N.E.2d 659 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “2d 748, 756 (2005)), ensures that inmates who are subjected to disciplinary actions are provided procedural due process in adjustment committee hearings in compliance with Wolff (see 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 (West 2004); 20 Ill. Adm.”
Fillmore v. Taylor, 2019 IL 122626 (Ill. 2020). “See 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 to 3-8-10 (West 2014). Accordingly, properly pled allegations of a denial of due process in prison disciplinary proceedings are reviewable in an action for certiorari.”
Fillmore v. Taylor, 2017 IL App (4th) 160309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “Because the statutory provisions pertaining to prison disciplinary procedures (730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 to 3-8-10 (West 2014)) neither adopt the Administrative Review Law nor provide any other method of judicial review, prison disciplinary proceedings are reviewable in an action for…”
Oswalt v. Godinez, 894 F. Supp. 1181 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “_, effective July 1,1992, implementing and authorized by 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 (1993). *1186 Applying the Seventh Circuit’s rationale in Cain , this directive does not appear to employ the necessary mandatory language to create a liberty interest, although the court observes that the…”
Fillmore v. Taylor, 2017 IL App (4th) 160309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “Because the statutory provisions pertaining to prison disciplinary procedures (730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 to 3-8-10 (West 2014)) neither adopt the Administrative Review Law nor provide any other method of judicial review, prison disciplinary proceedings are reviewable in an action for…”
Pitts v. Kolitwenzew, 2020 IL App (3d) 190267 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “180 of the County Jail Standards, which addresses mail procedures, provides that “[n]o disciplinary restrictions shall be placed on a detainee’s mail privileges.”
Knox v. Godinez, 966 N.E.2d 1233 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff's second-amended complaint rested on the allegation his disciplinary reports from June 1, 1997, to the present were void and in violation of his due-process rights and state-created liberty and property interests because DOC conducted his disciplinary proceedings under…”
Oliver v. Pierce, 2012 IL App (4th) 110005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “As the statutes regarding prison disciplinary procedures (see 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 through 3-8-10 (West 2008)) neither adopt the Administrative Review Law nor provide another method of judicial review of disciplinary procedures, certiorari review of prison discipline in the circuit…”
Pitts v. Kolitwenzew, 2020 IL App (3d) 190267 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “Second, Pitts contends, the trial court incorrectly interpreted the various applicable sections of the County Jail Standards and also -4- incorrectly determined that section 3-8-7(b)(1) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-8-7(b)(1) ( West 2018 )) did…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7(b)(1) — 4 cases
Arnett v. Snyder, 769 N.E.2d 943 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “" Plaintiffs' complaint alleged the policy violated section 3-8-7 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 (West 1996) (effective until June 1, 1997)), the eighth amendment (U.”
Pitts v. Kolitwenzew, 2020 IL App (3d) 190267 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “180 of the County Jail Standards, which addresses mail procedures, provides that “[n]o disciplinary restrictions shall be placed on a detainee’s mail privileges.”
Pitts v. Kolitwenzew, 2020 IL App (3d) 190267 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Second, Pitts contends, the trial court incorrectly interpreted the various applicable sections of the County Jail Standards and also -4- incorrectly determined that section 3-8-7(b)(1) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-8-7(b)(1) ( West 2018 )) did…”
Arnett v. Snyder (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
— 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7(b)(2) — 2 cases
Knox v. Godinez, 2012 IL App (4th) 110325 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Plaintiff’s second-amended complaint rested on the allegation his disciplinary reports from June 1, 1997, to the present were void and in violation of his due-process rights and state-created liberty and property interests because DOC conducted his disciplinary proceedings under…”
Knox v. Godinez, 966 N.E.2d 1233 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Plaintiff's second-amended complaint rested on the allegation his disciplinary reports from June 1, 1997, to the present were void and in violation of his due-process rights and state-created liberty and property interests because DOC conducted his disciplinary proceedings under…”
— 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7(c) — 2 cases
Reyes v. Walker (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
James Paul Clayton-El, Also Known as Carmichael Morrison v. Richard B. Gramley, Warden, 53 F.3d 333 (7th Cir. 1995).
— 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7(d) — 1 case
Robinson v. Schomig (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
— 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7(e)(1) — 3 cases
Rodriguez v. Illinois Prisoner Review Bd., 876 N.E.2d 659 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “2d 748, 756 (2005)), ensures that inmates who are subjected to disciplinary actions are provided procedural due process in adjustment committee hearings in compliance with Wolff (see 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7 (West 2004); 20 Ill. Adm.”
Knox v. Godinez, 2012 IL App (4th) 110325 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Plaintiff’s second-amended complaint rested on the allegation his disciplinary reports from June 1, 1997, to the present were void and in violation of his due-process rights and state-created liberty and property interests because DOC conducted his disciplinary proceedings under…”
Knox v. Godinez, 966 N.E.2d 1233 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Plaintiff's second-amended complaint rested on the allegation his disciplinary reports from June 1, 1997, to the present were void and in violation of his due-process rights and state-created liberty and property interests because DOC conducted his disciplinary proceedings under…”
— 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7(e)(5) — 1 case
Robinson v. Schomig (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.