Kuna v. Grosboll

2021 IL App (4th) 200181-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: February 16, 2021
• Docket: 4-20-0181
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2021 IL App (4th) 200181-U This Order was filed under Supreme FILED Court Rule 23 and is not precedent NO. 4-20-0181 February 16, 2021 except in the limited circumstances Carla Bender allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). th IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4 District Appellate Court, IL OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THOMAS J. KUNA-(JACOB), ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Greene County CAROLYN GROSBOLL, CHIEF CLERK OF THE ) No. 19MR25 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Defendant-Appellee. ) Honorable ) James W. Day, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cavanagh and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)).

¶2 Plaintiff, Thomas J. Kuna-(Jacob), filed a complaint against defendant, Carolyn

Grosboll, the Clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint

pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West

2018)), and the trial court granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff appeals, arguing the court erred

in granting defendant’s motion. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 In September 2019, plaintiff pro se filed a complaint against defendant. Although

it is not entirely clear from the complaint, it appears plaintiff attempted to assert a mandamus claim against defendant. Plaintiff alleged “Clerk Grosboll and her staff have refused to give an

IL SC File No to [plaintiff’s lawsuit against a credit union] 6-8 times ***, giving unfair

advantage to the opposing litigants ***.” Plaintiff further alleged defendant “repeatedly returned

[his] filings alleging ex parte communications between a party and a judge are forbidden ***.”

Plaintiff requested the trial court “directly Order Clerk Grosboll to give an ILSC file number” to

his action against the credit union.

¶5 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the

Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)). Defendant argued the complaint failed to state a

cognizable cause of action because plaintiff did not “allege a coherent set of facts to appraise the

Defendant of the allegations brought against her.” Defendant further argued that, assuming

plaintiff brought a mandamus action, plaintiff did not, and could not, establish any set of facts

demonstrating he was entitled to relief.

¶6 Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss and attached several letters

previously sent to him by defendant. In a letter dated August 2, 2019, defendant informed

plaintiff his petition for leave to appeal as a matter of right did not comply with Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 315(c) (eff. July 1, 2018) and identified the specific ways in which the petition failed

to meet the requirements of that rule. In a letter dated August 9, 2019, defendant stated the

following:

“Your submission is still not in compliance with Supreme

Court Rules for filing in this Court. Please refer to our previous

correspondence to you, specifically our letter dated August 2,

2019, with attachments (letters of July 19, 2019 and July 25, 2019)

-2- containing instructions on preparing a proper petition. Your

documents are being returned to you with this letter, unfiled.”

¶7 The trial court granted the State’s motion following a hearing, stating as follows:

“as [a] quick summary, sir, I know you have a number of

complaints but I also note that you’ve attached—you’ve attached

to your papers a letter from the Supreme Court of Illinois, signed,

what needs to be done to file certain things. And I think various

requirements were carefully outlined to you but bottom line, sir, is

you simply don’t—you haven’t stated a case against [defendant]

here. And I’m going to have to dismiss your complaint.”

Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied.

¶8 This appeal followed.

¶9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint.

¶ 11 We review a dismissal under section 2-615 de novo. See, e.g., Trevino v. Baldwin,

2020 IL App (4th) 180682, ¶ 17. “A complaint should be dismissed under section 2-615 only if it

is clearly apparent from the pleadings that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the

plaintiff to recover.” In re Estate of Powell, 2014 IL 115997, ¶ 12, 12 N.E.3d 14.

¶ 12 Initially, we note plaintiff forfeited his argument on appeal by failing to comply

with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018). See, e.g., People ex rel. Illinois

Department of Labor v. E.R.H. Enterprises, 2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56, 4 N.E.3d 1 (“Failure to

comply with [Rule 341’s] requirements results in forfeiture.”). For example, plaintiff’s brief does

not contain any of the sections mandated by Rule 341—e.g., “points and authorities,” “statement

-3- of jurisdiction,” etc.—nor does plaintiff cite to a single authority in support of his argument. See

Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018). Forfeiture aside, no colorable argument can be made

plaintiff was entitled to a writ of mandamus.

¶ 13 “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a public official to perform a

purely ministerial act that does not involve the exercise of discretion. [Citation.] The petitioner

must establish (1) a clear right to the relief requested, (2) a clear duty of the public official to act,

and (3) clear authority of the public official to comply.” Oliver v. Kuriakos-Ciesil, 2020 IL App

(4th) 190250, ¶ 22.

¶ 14 Here, put simply, plaintiff does not have a right to compel the clerk of the

supreme court to file documents that fail to conform to Illinois Supreme Court Rules. Based on

the letters plaintiff received from defendant and which plaintiff attached as exhibits to his

complaint, his proposed filings were defective as violative of court rules, and could not be

accepted for filing. Thus, it is clearly apparent plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would

entitle him to mandamus relief, and the trial court did not err in dismissing his complaint.

¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 17 Affirmed.

-4-