20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504

Section 504's disciplinary procedures apply to inmate actions that are disciplinary in nature, not to a non-disciplinary work transfer.

Wallace v. Merle D. Robinson, Zenon Symanski, Michael O'leary, and Michael P. Lane · filed 1990-09-26

Since Wallace’s transfer was not disciplinary in nature, the transfer does not invoke those Illinois statutory and regulatory protections, Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 38, 111003-8-7(b)(2), Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504 (1985), that are triggered by disciplinary actions. Instead, we apply those code and regulatory provisions, Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 38, ¶[¶ 1003-12-1 and 1003-12-2, III.Admin. Code tit. 20, § 420.30 (1985), that govern prison employment more generally.

Section 504's insolence rule covers harassing, annoying, or disrespectful inmate behavior, including unrelated baseless accusations of sexual misconduct, and may constitutionally be enforced.

Hale, Gregory v. Scott, Augustus · filed 2004-06-14

After the prison investigated the rumor and found it to be baseless, Hale was punished for violating a prison regulation that forbids “insolence,” defined as “talking, touching, gesturing or other behavior that harasses, annoys, or shows disrespect.” Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504, App. A. ... Prison regulations that forbid inmates to behave insolently toward guards are constitutional irrespective of New York Times v. Sullivan. ... Accusations of sexual misconduct unrelated to the accusing inmate’s legitimate concerns (Hale was not, for example, accusing Drone of sexual harassment of him) are species of such insolence.

Section 504, appendix A, defines prisoner insolence to include talking, touching, gesturing, or other behavior that harasses, annoys, or shows disrespect.

Morris v. Nelson · filed 2020-03-23

State regulations define prisoner insolence as “talking, touching, gesturing or other behavior that harasses, annoys or shows disrespect.” Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504 App. A. While Morris may quibble with the precise words that were said, there is no real dispute about whether he spoke disrespectfully to Nelson. Under such circumstances, his retaliation claim fails as a matter of law.

The regulation's wording suggests that a prisoner may be punished for a frivolous filing only when the court's finding is made in accordance with the statutory definitions of frivolousness.

Eichwedel v. Curry · filed 2012-08-29

Notably, the regulation implementing 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d) ... sets out the following offense: “A pleading, motion, or other paper filed by the offender for which the court, in accordance with 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3, has found to be frivolous.” ... The “in accordance with” clause comes in the middle of “the court . . . has found,” which suggests, at the very least, that the court must invoke and apply one of the definitions in 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d) before a prisoner may be punished for violating this disciplinary rule.