Snodgrass v. Raoul

2020 IL App (4th) 190154-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: February 3, 2020
• Docket: 4-19-0154
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2020 IL App (4th) 190154-U NOTICE FILED This order was filed under Supreme February 3, 2020 Court Rule 23 and may not be cited NO. 4-19-0154 as precedent by any party except in Carla Bender the limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRETT T. SNODGRASS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Sangamon County KWAME RAOUL, in His Official Capacity as Attorney ) No. 18MR565 General of the State of Illinois; and VAUGHN ) BENTLEY, in His Official Capacity as an Attorney for ) the Department of Financial and Professional Regula- ) Honorable tion, ) Jack D. Davis II, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Knecht and DeArmond concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The circuit court did not err by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

¶2 In July 2018, plaintiff, Brett T. Snodgrass, filed pro se a complaint against de-

fendants, Kwame Raoul, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and

Vaughn Bentley, in his official capacity as an attorney for the Department of Financial and Pro-

fessional Regulation (Department). In his complaint, plaintiff raised a facial constitutional chal-

lenge to section 9(B)(1) of the Medical Practice Act of 1987 (Act) (225 ILCS 60/9(B)(1) (West

2018)), which requires a person applying for a license under the Act to submit evidence the per-

son “is of good moral character.” Specifically, plaintiff asserted the section was void for vague-

ness and thus violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment (U.S. Const., amend. XIV).

¶3 In January 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under

section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)), noting plaintiff

failed to allege “by what mechanism he brings his facial challenge or how he would be entitled

to the relief he requests.” Defendants further noted plaintiff’s claim failed on the merits because

the Illinois Supreme Court has already upheld the requirement of good moral character in the

case of Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76, 91-92, 606

N.E.2d 1111, 1118-19 (1992). Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss, (1) asserting

six reasons why section 9(B)(1) of the Act was void for vagueness, (2) questioning the supreme

court’s analysis in the Abrahamson decision, (3) contending he has standing to raise his argu-

ment, and (4) apologizing for not meeting “the formatting standards of an attorney.” Plaintiff

also filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. After a March 2019 hearing, the San-

gamon County circuit court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied plaintiff leave to file

an amended complaint, and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

¶4 Defendant appeals pro se, seeking reversal of the circuit court’s dismissal of his

complaint. We affirm.

¶5 BACKGROUND

¶6 According to plaintiff’s July 2018 pro se complaint, he received “an amended no-

tice-of-intent-to-deny letter” from the Department in administrative case No. 2018-03057 on

May 9, 2018. The May 2018 letter listed five reasons why the Department intended to deny

plaintiff a medical license. One of the reasons the Department listed was plaintiff lacked the re-

quired moral character required to hold a license as a physician and surgeon in the State of Illi-

nois. Plaintiff mailed an amended reply to the Department on May 10, 2018. In addition to the

-2- aforementioned facts, plaintiff asserted eight reasons why section 9(B)(1) of the Act is unconsti-

tutional on its face. Plaintiff concluded his petition by asking for a pretrial hearing. On the day

he filed his complaint, plaintiff also filed two journal articles related to good moral character.

Plaintiff continued to file documents in support of his constitutional challenge, which included

the following: (1) numerous articles from various journals discussing good moral character,

(2) transcripts from the floor debates related to the Act, and (3) copies of legal decisions related

to good moral character. Plaintiff also filed documents in which he set forth and discussed the

“Aicher Rational Basis Test” and the canons of morality. However, plaintiff did not provide a

copy of the Department’s amended notice-of-intent-to-deny letter or plaintiff’s response to that

letter. Additionally, the outcome of plaintiff’s application for a license under the Act is un-

known.

¶7 In January 2019, defendants filed their motion to dismiss with a supporting mem-

orandum of law. As stated, defendants brought their motion under section 2-615 because plain-

tiff failed to allege “by what mechanism he brings his facial challenge or how he would be enti-

tled to the relief he requests.” Defendants also contended plaintiff’s claim failed on the merits

based on the Abrahamson decision. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss and sup-

porting memoranda. He contended he stated a claim seeking relief from “an unjust and unfair

law that is intolerably vague.” Plaintiff noted he had “created six categories of reasons” showing

why section 9(B)(1) was void for vagueness. Additionally, plaintiff questioned the analysis in

Abrahamson and asserted he had standing.

¶8 On March 7, 2019, plaintiff filed pro se a “brief for plaintiff’s first amended com-

plaint.” Plaintiff again contended he had standing. However, in addition to the due process

clause, plaintiff asserted section 9(B)(1) was void for vagueness under the “Liberty” and

-3- “Privileges” clauses of the fourteenth amendment. That same day, the circuit court held a joint

hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiff’s request for leave to file a first amended

complaint. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss

and denied plaintiff’s request for leave to file a first amended complaint. The court also indi-

cated a written order would be filed.

¶9 On March 11, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in sufficient compliance with

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017). The circuit court entered its written order

dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s complaint on March 22, 2019. Under Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 303(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017), “[a] notice of appeal filed after the court announces a

decision, but before the entry of the judgment or order, is treated as filed on the date of and after

the entry of the judgment or order.” Thus, this court has jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994).

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 In this case, the circuit court granted defendants’ section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Defendants argued they were entitled to dismissal because (1) plaintiff failed to allege the cause

of action in which plaintiff was bringing his constitutional argument and (2) the supreme court’s

decision in Abrahamson defeated plaintiff’s constitutional claim. A section 2-615 motion to dis-

miss challenges a complaint’s legal sufficiency. Roberts v. Board of Trustees of Community Col-

lege District No. 508, 2019 IL 123594, ¶ 21, 135 N.E.3d 891. In reviewing the complaint’s suf-

ficiency, the court takes all well-pleaded facts as true and construes the allegations in the com-

plaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Roberts, 2019 IL 123594, ¶ 21. With a section

2-615 motion, the court can only consider the facts apparent from the face of the complaint and

any attached exhibits. Hadley v. Doe, 2015 IL 118000, ¶ 29, 34 N.E.3d 549; Khan v. Deutsche

-4- Bank AG, 2012 IL 112219, ¶ 56, 978 N.E.2d 1020. Additionally, the court may not dismiss with

prejudice a cause of action under section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent no set of facts can be

proved allowing the plaintiff to recover. Roberts, 2019 IL 123594, ¶ 21. This court reviews

de novo an order granting a section 2-615 motion to dismiss. Roberts, 2019 IL 123594, ¶ 21.

We note defendants’ argument based on the Abrahamson decision would have been more appro-

priately brought under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West

2018)) because it raised an affirmative matter seeking to defeat the claim. Regardless, our re-

view of the circuit court’s dismissal under either section is de novo. Patrick Engineering, Inc. v.

City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31, 976 N.E.2d 318.

¶ 12 Moreover, we note this court may affirm the circuit court’s grant of a section 2-

615 motion to dismiss on any basis supported by the record. Dawson v. City of Geneseo, 2018

IL App (3d) 170625, ¶ 11, 127 N.E.3d 655. Our supreme court has a long-standing rule “ ‘cases

should be decided on nonconstitutional grounds whenever possible, reaching constitutional is-

sues only as a last resort.’ ” Carle Foundation v. Cunningham Township, 2017 IL 120427, ¶ 34,

89 N.E.3d 341 (quoting In re E.H., 224 Ill. 2d 172, 178, 863 N.E.2d 231, 234 (2006)). “Conse-

quently, courts *** must avoid reaching constitutional issues when a case can be decided on

other, nonconstitutional grounds, and such issues should be addressed only if necessary to decide

a case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carle Foundation, 2017 IL 120427, ¶ 34 (quoting

People v. Hampton, 225 Ill. 2d 238, 244, 867 N.E.2d 957, 960 (2007)).

¶ 13 While it appears the circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the basis

plaintiff could not prove section 9(B)(1) was unconstitutional based on the supreme court’s

Abrahamson decision, we begin by examining the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint on

nonconstitutional grounds. Defendants argued in their memorandum supporting their motion to

-5- dismiss that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a legally recognized claim, i.e., breach of con-

tract or malpractice, in which plaintiff was raising his constitutional claim. We agree with de-

fendants. The fact plaintiff brought his complaint pro se does not relieve him of the duty of

pleading an actual cause of action. “[I]n civil proceedings, pro se litigants are held to the same

standard as those represented by counsel, presumed to have full knowledge of and to comply

with applicable court rules and procedures, and are not entitled to more lenient treatment.” Titus

v. Alaeddin, 2018 IL App (3d) 170400, ¶ 10, 118 N.E.3d 707.

¶ 14 Our supreme court has explained a proper complaint as follows:

“To pass muster a complaint must state a cause of action in two ways.

First, it must be legally sufficient; it must set forth a legally recognized claim as

its avenue of recovery. When it fails to do this, there is no recourse at law for the

injury alleged, and the complaint must be dismissed. [Citations.] Second and un-

like Federal practice, the complaint must be factually sufficient; it must plead

facts which bring the claim within the legally recognized cause of action alleged.

If it does not, the complaint must be dismissed. [Citation.]” People ex rel.

Fahner v. Carriage Way West, Inc., 88 Ill. 2d 300, 308, 430 N.E.2d 1005, 1009

(1981).

In his complaint and brief requesting leave to file an amended complaint, plaintiff failed to ex-

pressly state what legally recognized claim he was using to properly raise his constitutional chal-

lenge. A review of the facts in the complaint does not provide a clear indication of what legally

recognized claim plaintiff was raising.

¶ 15 One possible interpretation of plaintiff’s complaint is plaintiff was seeking admin-

istrative review of a decision by the Department because he cited an administrative case number

-6- in his complaint. Administrative review may be obtained under the Administrative Review Law

(735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2018)) or with a writ of certiorari if the Administrative Review

Law does not apply. See Board of Education of Woodland Community Consolidated School Dis-

trict 50 v. Illinois State Charter School Comm’n, 2016 IL App (1st) 151372, ¶ 44, 60 N.E.3d

107. However, plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a final decision or even a decision by the

Department. See 735 ILCS 5/3-102 (West 2018) (noting the Administrative Review Law only

governs the judicial review of final decisions of an administrative agency). Instead, plaintiff’s

complaint alleged he had received an amended notice-of-intent-to-deny letter from the Depart-

ment, and plaintiff mailed a response to the Department’s letter. Thus, the facts in plaintiff’s

complaint only show the Department, subject to plaintiff’s response, intended to deny plaintiff’s

application on five grounds, including a failure to show good moral character as required by sec-

tion 9(B)(1) of the Act. Thus, plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts establishing an administra-

tive review action.

¶ 16 Likewise, plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts establishing a cause of action for

declaratory judgment. This court has previously identified the elements of an action for declara-

tory judgment as follows: “(1) a plaintiff with a tangible legal interest, (2) a defendant with an

adverse interest, and (3) an actual controversy regarding that interest.” AG Farms, Inc. v. Ameri-

can Premier Underwriters, Inc., 296 Ill. App. 3d 684, 689, 695 N.E.2d 882, 887 (1998). Our su-

preme court has defined “ ‘actual controversy’ as ‘a concrete dispute admitting of an immediate

and definitive determination of the parties’ rights, the resolution of which will aid in the termina-

tion of the controversy or some part thereof.’ ” AG Farms, Inc., 296 Ill. App. 3d at 690, 695

N.E.2d at 887 (quoting Underground Contractors Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 66 Ill. 2d 371, 375,

362 N.E.2d 298, 300 (1977)). The “some part thereof” language “does not mean an element of a

-7- single claim, but, rather, it means an entire claim which is part of more than one claim.” Marlow

v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 222 Ill. App. 3d 722, 730, 584 N.E.2d 345, 350 (1991). A judi-

cial determination of the constitutionality of section 9(B)(1) would not resolve plaintiff’s appli-

cation or some distinct part of the application with the Department because plaintiff did not al-

lege the Department had found plaintiff failed to meet the requirement set forth in section

9(B)(1) and denied him a license under the Act. Plaintiff only alleged the Department gave no-

tice it was intending to deny his application under the Act and one of the grounds for the in-

tended denial was plaintiff failed to meet the requirement set forth in section 9(B)(1) of the Act.

Additionally, plaintiff pleaded the Department listed four other grounds for its intent to deny

plaintiff a license. Thus, we find plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts showing an actual contro-

versy existed.

¶ 17 Additionally, given the fact plaintiff pleaded in his complaint the Department in-

tended to deny his application on four grounds in addition to plaintiff not meeting section

9(B)(1), plaintiff has failed to show how he could ever plead a cause of action allowing the court

to reach the merits of his constitutional argument.

¶ 18 Albeit for different reasons, we agree with the circuit court plaintiff cannot state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, the circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice of

plaintiff’s complaint and denial of plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint were

proper. Since we have affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on noncon-

stitutional grounds, we do not address plaintiff’s specific arguments on appeal, all of which are

related to his constitutional claim.

¶ 19 In his reply brief, plaintiff asks this court to remand his cause for him to raise an

as-applied challenge to section 9(B)(1) of the Act. We find plaintiff has forfeited this argument

-8- by failing to raise it in his initial brief (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018)) and note our

analysis of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint would have been the same if plaintiff had

raised an as-applied constitutional argument instead of a facial one.

¶ 20 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 21 For the reasons stated, we affirm the Sangamon County circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 22 Affirmed.

-9-