2021 IL App (4th) 190774-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under Supreme April 16, 2021 Court Rule 23 and is not precedent NO. 4-19-0774 Carla Bender except in the limited circumstances IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4th District Appellate allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JOSEPH BARNES, ) Appeal from the Petitioner-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Sangamon County ILLINOIS COURT OF CLAIMS, ) No. 19MR147 Respondent-Appellee. ) ) Honorable ) Jack D. Davis II, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER ¶1 Held: The circuit court did not err by dismissing petitioner’s writ of certiorari because petitioner failed to allege facts showing a due process violation.
¶2 In February 2019, petitioner, Joseph Barnes, filed a pro se petition for writ of
certiorari seeking review of a decision of the Illinois Court of Claims (court of claims). In April
2019, the court of claims filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)), asserting petitioner failed to allege any facts
showing it denied him due process. Following an October 2019 telephone hearing, the Sangamon
County circuit court granted the court of claims’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner appeals, asserting
the circuit court erred by dismissing his petition. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 In February 2018, petitioner, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections
(DOC), filed a complaint in the court of claims, alleging the State and DOC converted his
property after confiscating his desk lamp. Barnes v. State of Illinois, No. 18-CC-1781 (Illinois
Court of Claims). Petitioner alleged that (1) on June 30, 2016, he was issued a disciplinary report
for possession of contraband and disobeying a direct order, which indicated “that said lamp was
phased out and [was] no longer sold at the Inmate Commissary,” and (2) prison staff failed to
properly address his grievance regarding the “wrongful confiscation of his desk lamp,” thereby
denying him the ability to exhaust all of his administrative remedies. According to his complaint,
petitioner asserted the State was liable to him for a sum of $31.55, which included the desk lamp,
lightbulb, “copies,” and postage.
¶5 In June 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s complaint pursuant
to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016)), arguing the court of claims did
not have jurisdiction to review the disciplinary and administrative decisions of DOC. In July
2018, petitioner filed a written response to the State’s motion to dismiss, asserting, in part, “that
his Complaint [was] a property issue and not a complaint concerning rules and policies of IDOC
***.”
¶6 In September 2018, the court of claims entered an order dismissing petitioner’s
claim for lack of jurisdiction because it challenged an administrative decision of DOC to
consider lamps with removable lightbulbs as contraband and subject to confiscation. Barnes, No.
18-CC-1781 (Illinois Court of Claims, Sep. 4, 2018).
¶7 In February 2019, petitioner filed his petition for writ of certiorari in the
Sangamon County circuit court. Petitioner alleged the court of claims deprived him of his due
process rights to be heard on the merits of his claim. Specifically, petitioner alleged that “no one
-2- *** acknowledged, addressed or responded to the claim in [his] grievance concerning his desk
lamp and his request to be reimbursed for the cost of the lamp,” and the court of claims
improperly allowed the State “to change [his] claim *** and respond to an issue that was never
stated in [his] complaint.” Petitioner further alleged the court of claims erroneously based its
decision “on a case *** that supposed a claim that was not the claim petitioner was complainting
[sic] about.” Petitioner requested that the court review “copies of the attached 2 grievances and a
copy of the Complaint filed in the Court of Claims,” which he asserted would “verify that [his]
complaint was never about administrative policies and decisions of [DOC].”
¶8 In April 2019, the court of claims filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section
2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)) and a supporting memorandum of law,
asserting petitioner failed to state a cause of action for a writ of certiorari because he did not
allege facts showing a due process violation.
¶9 Following an October 2019 telephone hearing, the circuit court granted the court
of claims’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, noting petitioner could not state a claim for relief.
Thus, a writ of certiorari was not appropriate relief under these set of facts.
¶ 10 This appeal followed.
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 Plaintiff challenges the circuit court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of
certiorari pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)). A section
2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the complaint’s legal sufficiency based on defects apparent
on its face. Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 19, 69 N.E.3d 834. In ruling on such a
motion, “a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may
be drawn from those facts.” Blumenthal, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 19. The court must determine
-3- “whether the allegations of the complaint, when construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, are sufficient to establish a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.”
Blumenthal, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 19. This court reviews de novo the grant of a section 2-615
motion to dismiss. Blumenthal, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 19.
¶ 13 The First District, in Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st)
162068, ¶ 14, 77 N.E.3d 1165, explained a circuit court’s review of a decision by the court of
claims.
“When the 1970 Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art.
XIII, § 4) abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity, ‘[e]xcept
as the General Assembly may provide by law,’ the legislature
established the Court of Claims with exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and determine ‘[a]ll claims against the State.’ [Citation.] The
function of the Court of Claims is not to adjudicate cases but rather
‘to receive and resolve claims against the state.’ [Citation.] The
Act does not provide a method of review of Court of Claims
decisions. However, our supreme court has determined that a party
may use certiorari as a means to address alleged deprivations of
due process. [Citation.] ‘The purpose of certiorari review is to
have the entire record of the inferior tribunal brought before the
court to determine, from the record alone, whether the tribunal
proceeded according to applicable law.’ [Citation.] However,
‘certiorari may not be used to review the correctness of a decision
by the Court of Claims based upon the merits of the case before it.’
-4- [Citation.] Instead, a reviewing court determines whether the
requirements of due process were met through the provision of ‘an
orderly proceeding in which a party receive[d] adequate notice and
an opportunity to be heard.’ [Citation.] ‘Due process is not
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2021 IL App (4th) 190774-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under Supreme April 16, 2021 Court Rule 23 and is not precedent NO. 4-19-0774 Carla Bender except in the limited circumstances IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4th District Appellate allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JOSEPH BARNES, ) Appeal from the Petitioner-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Sangamon County ILLINOIS COURT OF CLAIMS, ) No. 19MR147 Respondent-Appellee. ) ) Honorable ) Jack D. Davis II, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER ¶1 Held: The circuit court did not err by dismissing petitioner’s writ of certiorari because petitioner failed to allege facts showing a due process violation.
¶2 In February 2019, petitioner, Joseph Barnes, filed a pro se petition for writ of
certiorari seeking review of a decision of the Illinois Court of Claims (court of claims). In April
2019, the court of claims filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)), asserting petitioner failed to allege any facts
showing it denied him due process. Following an October 2019 telephone hearing, the Sangamon
County circuit court granted the court of claims’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner appeals, asserting
the circuit court erred by dismissing his petition. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 In February 2018, petitioner, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections
(DOC), filed a complaint in the court of claims, alleging the State and DOC converted his
property after confiscating his desk lamp. Barnes v. State of Illinois, No. 18-CC-1781 (Illinois
Court of Claims). Petitioner alleged that (1) on June 30, 2016, he was issued a disciplinary report
for possession of contraband and disobeying a direct order, which indicated “that said lamp was
phased out and [was] no longer sold at the Inmate Commissary,” and (2) prison staff failed to
properly address his grievance regarding the “wrongful confiscation of his desk lamp,” thereby
denying him the ability to exhaust all of his administrative remedies. According to his complaint,
petitioner asserted the State was liable to him for a sum of $31.55, which included the desk lamp,
lightbulb, “copies,” and postage.
¶5 In June 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s complaint pursuant
to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016)), arguing the court of claims did
not have jurisdiction to review the disciplinary and administrative decisions of DOC. In July
2018, petitioner filed a written response to the State’s motion to dismiss, asserting, in part, “that
his Complaint [was] a property issue and not a complaint concerning rules and policies of IDOC
***.”
¶6 In September 2018, the court of claims entered an order dismissing petitioner’s
claim for lack of jurisdiction because it challenged an administrative decision of DOC to
consider lamps with removable lightbulbs as contraband and subject to confiscation. Barnes, No.
18-CC-1781 (Illinois Court of Claims, Sep. 4, 2018).
¶7 In February 2019, petitioner filed his petition for writ of certiorari in the
Sangamon County circuit court. Petitioner alleged the court of claims deprived him of his due
process rights to be heard on the merits of his claim. Specifically, petitioner alleged that “no one
-2- *** acknowledged, addressed or responded to the claim in [his] grievance concerning his desk
lamp and his request to be reimbursed for the cost of the lamp,” and the court of claims
improperly allowed the State “to change [his] claim *** and respond to an issue that was never
stated in [his] complaint.” Petitioner further alleged the court of claims erroneously based its
decision “on a case *** that supposed a claim that was not the claim petitioner was complainting
[sic] about.” Petitioner requested that the court review “copies of the attached 2 grievances and a
copy of the Complaint filed in the Court of Claims,” which he asserted would “verify that [his]
complaint was never about administrative policies and decisions of [DOC].”
¶8 In April 2019, the court of claims filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section
2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)) and a supporting memorandum of law,
asserting petitioner failed to state a cause of action for a writ of certiorari because he did not
allege facts showing a due process violation.
¶9 Following an October 2019 telephone hearing, the circuit court granted the court
of claims’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, noting petitioner could not state a claim for relief.
Thus, a writ of certiorari was not appropriate relief under these set of facts.
¶ 10 This appeal followed.
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 Plaintiff challenges the circuit court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of
certiorari pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)). A section
2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the complaint’s legal sufficiency based on defects apparent
on its face. Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 19, 69 N.E.3d 834. In ruling on such a
motion, “a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may
be drawn from those facts.” Blumenthal, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 19. The court must determine
-3- “whether the allegations of the complaint, when construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, are sufficient to establish a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.”
Blumenthal, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 19. This court reviews de novo the grant of a section 2-615
motion to dismiss. Blumenthal, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 19.
¶ 13 The First District, in Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st)
162068, ¶ 14, 77 N.E.3d 1165, explained a circuit court’s review of a decision by the court of
claims.
“When the 1970 Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art.
XIII, § 4) abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity, ‘[e]xcept
as the General Assembly may provide by law,’ the legislature
established the Court of Claims with exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and determine ‘[a]ll claims against the State.’ [Citation.] The
function of the Court of Claims is not to adjudicate cases but rather
‘to receive and resolve claims against the state.’ [Citation.] The
Act does not provide a method of review of Court of Claims
decisions. However, our supreme court has determined that a party
may use certiorari as a means to address alleged deprivations of
due process. [Citation.] ‘The purpose of certiorari review is to
have the entire record of the inferior tribunal brought before the
court to determine, from the record alone, whether the tribunal
proceeded according to applicable law.’ [Citation.] However,
‘certiorari may not be used to review the correctness of a decision
by the Court of Claims based upon the merits of the case before it.’
-4- [Citation.] Instead, a reviewing court determines whether the
requirements of due process were met through the provision of ‘an
orderly proceeding in which a party receive[d] adequate notice and
an opportunity to be heard.’ [Citation.] ‘Due process is not
abridged where a tribunal misconstrues the law or otherwise
commits an error for which its judgment should be reversed.’
[Citation.]” Krozel, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068, ¶ 14.
¶ 14 Here, we find petitioner’s certiorari petition did not plead facts raising a claim of
a due process violation. The only grounds petitioner offers for certiorari review are his
disagreements with the merits of the court of claims’s decision. Specifically, petitioner asserts
his due process rights were violated because (1) “no one *** acknowledged, addressed or
responded to the claim in [his] grievance concerning his desk lamp and his request to be
reimbursed for the cost of the lamp,” and (2) the court of claims improperly allowed the State “to
change [his] claim” and argue that the court of claims lacked jurisdiction to address the
administrative polices of DOC. Petitioner does not assert any facts indicating he did not receive
due process, i.e., a lack of adequate notice or that he was denied an opportunity to be heard. See
Krozel, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068, ¶ 14; see also Reichert v. Court of Claims of State of Illinois,
203 Ill. 2d 257, 261, 786 N.E.2d 174, 177 (2003). Once petitioner filed his complaint, the court
of claims conducted orderly proceedings during which petitioner received adequate notice and an
opportunity to be heard. When the State filed its motion to dismiss, petitioner was allowed to file
his response. Accordingly, we find the circuit court properly denied petitioner’s complaint for
writ of certiorari.
-5- ¶ 15 Additionally, whether the court of claims erroneously based its decision “on a
case *** that supposed a claim that was not the claim petitioner was complainting [sic] about,” is
not reviewable. Due process is not violated where the court of claims merely misconstrues the
law or otherwise commits an error for which its judgment should be reversed. Krozel, 2017 IL
App (1st) 162068, ¶ 14; Reichert, 203 Ill. 2d at 261. Thus, even if the court of claims erred in its
determination, a misconstruction of law does not amount to a due process violation.
¶ 16 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
¶ 18 Affirmed.
-6-