Opinion
NO. 4-17-0311
02-02-2018
CHARLES KUCINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDREW TILDEN, SCOTT McCORMICK, WILLIAM ALLEY, and DONNA JONES, Defendants-Appellees.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Livingston County
No. 16MR144
Honorable Jennifer H. Bauknecht, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Holder White and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding (1) the trial court did not err in granting defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's pro se complaint and (2) plaintiff forfeited his claim the court erred in denying him leave to amend his complaint.
¶ 2 In August 2016, plaintiff Charles Kucinsky, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed a pro se complaint for damages and injunctive relief against defendants Andrew Tilden, Scott McCormick, William Alley, and Donna Jones. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the trial court granted. The court later denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider and his request to file an amended complaint.
¶ 3 On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in (1) granting defendants' motions to dismiss and (2) denying his request for leave to file an amended complaint. We affirm.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 In August 2016, plaintiff was an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (Pontiac). At that time, he filed an action against defendants for damages and injunctive relief under section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)). Tilden, McCormick, and Alley were doctors at Pontiac, and Jones worked as a grievance counselor at the facility. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged he submitted numerous grievances and received responses from Jones for only some of them. He forwarded the responses from Jones to "the grievance officer" but received no response.
¶ 6 Plaintiff also filed a pro se motion for class-action certification, complaining the medical services at Pontiac were "systemically inadequate and unmeaningful [sic]." He alleged he told Dr. Tilden about his foot pain and trouble walking due to an amputated left big toe, "which bleeds at times due to scars opening up." Tilden ignored plaintiff's medical issue and "acted deliberately indifferent." Tilden then "sarcastically asked" a nurse what she thought, and the nurse "sarcastically" stated plaintiff would "be fine." Plaintiff alleged he never received his requested cane and a low gallery permit. He claimed his "hunger pains" due to an inadequate diet were ignored, and Dr. Tilden stated, "This isn't a hotel. You shouldn't come to prison to get free medical care." Plaintiff also alleged he had trouble receiving mental-health care at Pontiac. Plaintiff "was developing mental illness" and, after being "double celled in June 2014," he "started developing extreme depression anxiety and other unknown mental illness." His mental illness had worsened to the point of having hallucinations and "wanting to become very violent." Plaintiff claimed Dr. McCormick and Dr. Alley "brushed [him] off" and "acted deliberately indifferent." In his prayer for relief, plaintiff asked for injunctive relief, $100,000, proper medical and mental-health treatment, and a single cell. Plaintiff currently resides at Lawrence Correctional Center.
¶ 7 In October 2016, Jones filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Procedure Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2016)), claiming plaintiff's complaint failed to state sufficient facts or allegations to support a legally recognized cause of action against her. In response to plaintiff's allegation that his grievances were not processed correctly, Jones noted the State's grievance process does not create a liberty interest to support his claim.
¶ 8 In November 2016, Tilden, Alley, and McCormick filed a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, arguing plaintiff's complaint failed to state sufficient facts or allegations to support a claim. They contended his request for injunctive relief should be denied because he was no longer housed at Pontiac, and thus, his request was moot. They also asked that plaintiff's motion for class-action certification be denied.
¶ 9 Plaintiff filed a response to defendants' motions to dismiss, arguing he satisfied the minimal pleading requirements of the federal rules of civil procedure. The trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding plaintiff failed to set forth a cause of action because he had no right to have his grievances processed. Moreover, the court found it had no jurisdiction to award compensatory damages and plaintiff failed to set forth the necessary elements for injunctive relief.
¶ 10 Plaintiff filed a pro se motion for reconsideration and leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff also attached a first amended complaint for damages. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider, finding it "still does not cure the original defects." The court also found plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed without leave of court and ordered it stricken. Moreover, even considering plaintiff's request, the court found the "first amended complaint still does not cure the original defects." This appeal followed.
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 A. Motion to Dismiss
¶ 13 Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss. We disagree.
¶ 14 In the case sub judice, the trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss under section 2-615. A motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Procedure Code challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Schloss v. Jumper, 2014 IL App (4th) 121086, ¶ 20, 11 N.E.3d 57. In ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, "the question is '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.' " Green v. Rogers, 234 Ill. 2d 478, 491, 917 N.E.2d 450, 458-59 (2009) (quoting Vitro v. Mihelcic, 209 Ill. 2d 76, 81, 806 N.E.2d 632, 634 (2004)). The trial court should not grant the motion to dismiss "unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Tedrick v. Community Resource Center, Inc., 235 Ill. 2d 155, 161, 920 N.E.2d 220, 223 (2009). We review a dismissal pursuant to section 2-615 de novo. Beacham v. Walker, 231 Ill. 2d 51, 57, 896 N.E.2d 327, 331 (2008).
¶ 15 1. Jones
¶ 16 The allegations in plaintiff's complaint focus solely on Jones, but he made a generic request for injunctive relief against all defendants. However, plaintiff no longer resides at Pontiac. "When an inmate is transferred to another prison, a claim for injunctive relief against an official at the first prison is moot unless the inmate demonstrates that he is likely to be transferred back to the former facility." Murillo v. Page, 294 Ill. App. 3d 860, 867, 690 N.E.2d
1033, 1039-40 (1998). As plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of any transfer back to Pontiac, his complaint for injunctive relief is moot.
¶ 17 In his complaint, plaintiff claimed his due-process rights were violated because Jones ignored his grievances or they otherwise went unanswered. However, inmates do not have a constitutional right to a grievance process. See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating "[p]rison grievance procedures are not mandated by the First Amendment and do not by their very existence create interests protected by the Due Process Clause"); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (stating state-created inmate grievance procedures do not give rise to liberty interests protected by the due-process clause). As plaintiff has no right to a grievance process and thus cannot establish a due-process violation, his claim against Jones was properly dismissed.
¶ 18 2. Tilden, McCormick, and Alley
¶ 19 On appeal, plaintiff claims he filed a section 1983 complaint for injunctive and compensatory relief as a result of defendants' deliberate indifference. In his pro se complaint, plaintiff named Drs. Tilden, McCormick, and Alley, but the only allegations therein pertained to Jones and the grievance procedure. Plaintiff's complaint did not include facts about the medical or mental-health treatment he received at Pontiac or raise a deliberate-indifference claim. While plaintiff's motion for class-action certification raised those issues, a court ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss "may not consider facts outside the four corners of the complaint." Liddle v. Salem School District. No. 600, 249 Ill. App. 3d 768, 770, 619 N.E.2d 530, 531 (1993). Accordingly, as plaintiff's complaint failed to raise a valid claim against Tilden, McCormick, and Alley, the trial court properly granted their motion to dismiss.
¶ 20 B. Leave to Amend the Complaint
¶ 21 Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in denying him leave to amend his complaint. We find this issue forfeited.
¶ 22 Supreme court rules governing the contents of appellate briefs are not mere suggestions. Niewold v. Fry, 306 Ill. App. 3d 735, 737, 714 N.E.2d 1082, 1084 (1999). " 'The purpose of the rules is to require parties to proceedings before a reviewing court to present clear and orderly arguments so that the court may properly ascertain and dispose of the issues involved.' " La Grange Memorial Hospital v. St. Paul Insurance Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 863, 876, 740 N.E.2d 21, 32 (2000) (quoting Collier v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 248 Ill. App. 3d 1088, 1095, 618 N.E.2d 771, 776 (1993)). A pro se litigant is not relieved of the duty to comply with supreme court rules. Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8, 961 N.E.2d 475.
¶ 23 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. July 1, 2017) provides that an appellant's brief shall contain "[a]rgument, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on." "Bare contentions in the absence of argument or citation of authority do not merit consideration on appeal and are deemed waived." Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682, 624 N.E.2d 928, 931 (1993); see also People ex rel. Illinois Department of Labor v. E.R.H. Enterprises, 2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56, 4 N.E.3d 1 (stating the "[f]ailure to comply with the rule's requirements results in forfeiture").
¶ 24 In his brief, plaintiff sets forth a one-paragraph argument, claiming the trial court committed reversible error in denying him leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff states he sought leave to amend "in the interest of justice so as to not waste court resources and obtain justice." "[A] reviewing court is not simply a depository into which a party may dump the burden of argument and research." E.R.H. Enterprises, 2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56, 4 N.E.3d 1. By
failing to set forth a cohesive argument and cite pertinent authority to support his claim, plaintiff's brief fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. July 1, 2017). Accordingly, we find this issue is forfeited.
¶ 25 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 26 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 27 Affirmed.