1 NOTICE Decision fi led 05/ 19/10. The text of this decision may be changed or correct ed prior

to t he fi ling of a Peti tio n for

Rehearing o r th e disposit ion of

the same. NO. 5-08-0179 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

________________________________________________________________________ LAMONTE LAKE, ) Appeal f rom the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) Clint on County. ) v. ) No. 08-MR-15 ) TH E ST ATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Honorable ) Denn is E. M iddendo rff, Defendant-Appe llee

. ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

______________________________________ _____________________________________ JUST ICE SP OM ER delivered the op inion o f the co urt: The plaintiff

, an inmat e atCentral ia Correc tionalCenter, appe als f rom the March 20, 2008, order of

the ci rcuit

court of Clinton Count

y dismi ssinghis pet iti on forcommon-law certiorarireli ef fr om a Court of Cla ims or der dismiss ing his m edica l malpra ctice cla im against the State and the Illinois Dep artment of C orrections (D epartment). T he plaintiff
see ks the reversalof the circuit court' s dismissalof his petit ion. For the following reas ons, we reverse the judgment of t he circuit court

and remand w ith direct ions. BACKGR OUND On M arch 18, 2008, t

he plaintiff

fil ed pro se in the c ircuit co urt of C linton C oun ty
a petition for common-l aw certiorarireli ef, see kingrevi ew of the Court of Claims'dismi ssal of his medical ma lpractice claim against the State and the Dep artment. The peti tion was tit led "common-law petition" and r equested t hat the circui t court

"order a summons to i ssue in due form, directe d to the Cour t of Claims to cer tif y and bringthe rec ord of the proceedi ngs of

the Court of

Claim s befo re this co urt, and that [the Court

of Claims '] order may be reversed and set aside."2

The plaintiff's petitio n alleged that by dismiss ing his cla im for his failure to at tach a ph ys ic ia n's affidavit o f merit and w ritten rep ort, as requi red by sect ion 2–622 of t he Code of Civi l Procedur e (735 I LCS 5/2–622 ( West 200 4)), al so know n as th e H ealing Arts Malpracti ce Act, the Co urt of C laims "fa iled to p rotect [h is] rights to a tri al on the merit s of his case" and t

hereby vi olate d his ri ght t o due process . The circ uit cour t did no t hold a hearing on the pet iti on and did not r evi ew the recor d of the underlyingproceedi ngs i n the Cou rt of Claims. On M arch 20, 2008, t he circ uit cour

t dis missed sua s

pon te th e p la in ti ff

's petition, findi ng that i t did not have juri sdict ion ove r the petiti on and that "the r elie f soug ht
can on ly be granted by an App ellate Court." The plaintiff

timely fil ed a noti ce of appeal on April 8, 2008

. The plaintiff filed his ap pe ll an t's brief

on Septe mber 16, 2008, but the bri ef was defective , and on August 21, 2009, he wa s granted 21 d ays to show caus e w hy it sh ould not be stricken for its failure to com ply with Supreme Cou rt Rule 341 ( 210 Il l. 2d R. 341). On September 9 and December 7 the plaintiff fil ed motions for ext ensions of time in which to fi le an amendedbrief , both of whic h were granted

. The plaintiff

fil ed his amended brief onJanuary 19, 2010, to which he attached , inter alia , a purport ed copy of the Courtof Cla ims o rder that dis posed o f hi s cl aim. This order
was neithe r admit

ted into evidence no r considered by the circuit cou rt, and there is nothing prop erly within the reco rd on ap peal that confirms the plaintiff 's recoun ti ng of t

he pro cee din gs in the Co urt of Claims. The Stat e has not f iled an answer bri ef, cont ending that it is not properl y a party t o the appealbecause t he ci rc ui t c ou rt di sm is se d t he pl ai nt if f's petition prior to service being mad e on an y State entity. STANDARD OF REVI EW Whether the circ uit cou rt prop erly exercised subject-matter juri sdiction is a questi on of law th at we r ev ie w de novo

. I

n r e J oh n C .M

. , 382 Ill. App. 3d 553, 9 04 N .E.2d 5 0 (2008 ).3 DI SC USS I ON Ini tial ly, we n ote that becau se the record o f the underlyin g proceedings in the C ourt of Claims is dehors the rec ord o n app eal, w e can not co nside r its con tents in m aki ng our decisi on. Reviewingcourts must det ermine the issu es be fore th em o n app eal sole ly on the basi s of the r eco rd made in the trial court. People v. Heaton , 266 I ll. App. 3d 469, 640 N.E.2d 630 (1994). " [E]vi dence which is not part of the r ecor d on appe al i s not t o be consider ed by a reviewing cou rt [citation], and attachments to brief s on appeal, not otherwise before the revi ewing court , cannotbe used to supplement the record." Heaton , 266 I ll. App. 3d at 476, 640 N.E.2d at 635. The Cou rt of Claims Act (Ac t) ( 705 IL CS 505/1 et seq. (West 2006)) cr eat ed a n excepti on to the doc tri ne of sover eig n immunit

y by allowing

parti es to br ing monet ary cl aims against the St ate i n the Cou rt of Claims. It is the leg isl ature' s respons ibil ity t o establ ish the conditi ons upon w hich suits ag ainstthe St ate may be brought , and the Genera l Asse mbly has determi ned that

the Cour t of Clai ms has exclus ive subject -matt er jur isdi ctionover monetary claims against the State. Hyde Park Medical Lab or ator

y, In c. v. Cou rt

of Cl ai ms , 259 Ill. App. 3d 889, 89 3, 632 N .E.2d 3 07, 310 (1994). The Act does not

provi de for any met

hod for t he revi ew of decisi ons of the Court of Claims, and because the C ourt o f Claim s is not a "cou rt" with in the meani ng of ar ticl e VI of the Illinois Co nstitution of 19 70 (Ill. Co nst. 1970, art . VI), its decisi ons are g eneral ly not subject to judicial review. Klopfer v. Court of Cl ai ms , 286 I ll. App. 3d 499, 502, 676 N.E.2d 679, 682 (1997). A narrow exception to this r ule exists, thou gh, in circums tances where a party all ege s th at t

he Court of Cla ims acted i n a man ner w hich d eprived him o f his consti tuti onal right

to due process. Reichert v. Courtof Cl ai ms , 203 I ll. 2d 257, 261, 786 N.E .2d 174 , 177 (20 03). The commo n-law w rit of certiorariprovides a means whereby a party who has n o4

avenue of appeal or dir ect re vie w may obtain l imit ed revi ew over act ions by a court or other tribunal exerci singquasi- judici al functions, unl ess the stat ute und e r which the body proceededspecifically denies review

. Reichert , 203 I ll. 2d at 260, 78 6 N.E .2d at 177

. The Il linoi s Supre me Court, i n Ros setti Contracting Co. v. Court of Cl ai ms , 109 I ll. 2d 72, 79, 485 N.E.2d 332, 334-35 (1985) , deter mined that because the Act neithe r expres sly deni es
nor expressly provi des for the rev iew of act ions of the C ourt o f Claim s, a pe tition for a writ of certiorarican be fi led in t he circ uit cour

t by a party alleg ing a vi olation of his due process rights. The scope of r evi ew for a petition for certiorarirelief from a decision o f the Cou rt of Claims i s quit e narrow. The ci rcuit court has subject -matt er juri sdict ion to det ermine
w hether th e p et itio ne r wa s a ff or de d hi s due pr oc es s r ight s, but it ma y no t r ev ie w th e correctness of a decision based upon the merits of the case before t he Court of Claims. Reichert , 203 Ill. 2d at 260-6 1, 786 N .E.2d a t 177. The Illinois Suprem e Cou rt has further held that a p arty's due process ri ghts are sati sfie d by th e pro ceed ings in the Court of Claims when an orderly procee ding i s held and the pa rty is pro vided w ith notic e and the op portu nity to be h eard a t a meaning ful t ime and in a meanin gful manner. Reichert , 203 Ill. 2d at 261, 7 86 N .E.2d a t 177. Du e pro cess is not abridg ed where the Court of Claims mer ely mis constr ues the l aw or otherwis e commits an
error for wh ich its judgment shou ld be reversed. Reichert , 203 Ill. 2d at 261, 786 N.E.2d at 177. The purp ose o f a w rit of certiorariis to h ave the ent ire r ecord of t he inferior t

ribunal brought before t he circui t court

to dete rmine, from that rec ord alone, if t he former

proceeded accordi ng to the applicab le law. Strat ton v. W enona Com mun ity Unit District No . 1 , 133 Ill. 2d 413, 427, 551 N.E .2d 640 , 645 (19 90). There is no a bsolut e right to r evi ew by certiorari , and the issuance o f a writ of certiorariis with in the so und discre tion of th e circu it court. Strat ton , 133 Ill. 2d at 428 , 551 N .E.2d a t 646. A pe tition for certiorarirelief is pro perly5

deniedif t

he court f

inds that the plaintiff

cannot pre vai l orthat he is not entitled to t

he revi ew he seeks. Tan ne r v . Co ur t o f C la ims , 256 Ill. App. 3d 1 089, 62 9 N.E .2d 696 (1994). In issuing a comm on-law writ of certiorari , the circuit court is c omman ding t he infer iortribunal to c erti fy and r eturn the rec ord o f the pr ocee dings at iss ue to th e circu it
cour t
. Co mrs . of M ason & Ta zewell Spe cial D raina ge D istrict v. G riffin , 134 I ll. 330, 25 N.E. 995 (1890). Af

ter i ssuingthe writ , the ci rcuit court has two options upon the ret urn of the record of the p rocee dings. If the c ircuit court finds from a n exam ination of the reco rd that t he proceedi ngs i n the inf erior tribunal sat isfi ed the pet iti oner' s due proces s rights, t he petition for a w rit of certiorariis di smiss ed and the writ is quash ed. Tanner , 256 Il l. App. 3d at 109 1, 62 9 N .E.2 d at 69 8. If, on th e othe r han d, the cour t finds that t he p roc eed ings viol atedthe pet iti oner' s due proces s rights, t he judg ment and proc eed ings shown by the record of the i nferi or tribunal are qua shed. Strat ton , 133 Il l. 2d at 427, 551 N.E.2d at 645. Regardless of whether t he circ uit cour

t quashes the writ

and dismi sses t

he peti tionor quashes the underlying judgment andproc eedin gs, it doe s no t have juris dicti on t o re we igh th e evi dence heard by the Court of Claims or to or der the Court of Claims to gr ant any spec ific relief to the plaintiff. B ernero v. Retirement Board of the Fi remen's Annuit

y & Ben efitFund of t

he City of

Chicago , 297 I ll. App. 28, 36-37, 17 N.E.2d 75, 79 (1938). I f the circuit court quas hes the w rit of certiorari , it doe s not re nder a new judg ment but r ather issues a writ of procedendo , which serves as a notification to the inferi or tribunal that the writ of certiorarihas been quashe d and tha t the status quo w ill be preserved. Chicago & Rock Island R.R . Co . v. Fell , 22 Ill. 33 3 (18 59); Wolfinbarger v. County Court of

Willi amson Co unty , 323 Ill. App. 436 , 55 N .E.2d 8 80 (194 4) (abstract of op.). If the ci rcuit

cour t inste ad quashes t he proceedi ngs and j udgment of the Court of Claims, its quashal order i s self -execut ing and "requi res no process of any ki nd to enfor ce it." Peop le ex rel. Barry v. Gregory , 324 I ll. App. 614, 620, 59 N .E .2 d 1 06 , 1 08 (1 94 4) . If6

the judgment

and proceedi ngs of

the C ourt o f Claim s are q uash ed, th e plain tiff is free to refile his claim. See, e.g. , Bernero , 297 I ll. App. at36-3 7, 17 N.E .2d a t 79 (sta ting that if
on remand the c ircui t court quashed the unde rlyi ng procee dings of the Retire ment Board of the F iremen 's Annuity and B enefit Fun d of th e City of C hicago , the p laintiff w ould be "in a position to again pre sent her app lication" for benefits). The Illinois App ellate C ourt, Fourth Dist rict , in Tanner , rev ersedth e c ir cu it co ur t's dismi ssal o f a petition for certiorarireli ef because the ci rcuit court had not

examined t

he record of p roc eed ings from the C ourt of Claims prior to dis missi ng the plaintiff 's petition. Tanner , 256 Il l. App. 3d at 1092-93, 629 N.E.2d at 699. The Tanner court s tate d, "[T]he record from the inf

erior tribunal must

normall y be made a part of the tri al court

record f or the cour t to revi ew." Tanner , 256 Ill. App. 3d a t 1092, 6 29 N .E.2d a t 699. Th e court acknowledg ed that the decision to issue a writ of certiorariis within the di scr etion of the circuit court and t

hat "t here may be i nstances when the writ i s properly denied i f, as a matt er of law, the co urt is able t o determi ne plai ntif f cannot pr evai l or he i s not ent itl ed to the revi ew he seeks." Tanner , 256 Ill. App. 3d at 1092 , 629 N .E.2d a t 699. But the court found that und er the fa cts w ith wh ich it was confront ed, the circuit court i mproperl y dismi ssed the petition for certiorariwithou t first examining the re co rd of proc eeding s in the Court of Claims. Tanner , 256 Ill. App. 3d a t 1092-93 , 629 N .E.2d a t 699. "Whether plaintiff

was subject

to a depri vat ion of

due process *** is not su scep tible of resol utionwithout an e xaminat ion of the unde rlying record before the Cou rt of Claims." Tanner , 256 Ill. App. 3d a t 1092, 6 29 N .E .2d at 699. Bec ause the circ uit cou rt failed to examine the rec ord of proc eeding s from t he Court of Claims, the Tanner court r emanded the case, directingthe circuit court to iss u e the w rit of certiorariand, upon the r eturn of the record of proceedings, de termi ne whetherthe due proc ess v iolations alle ged by the peti tioner
were su pported b y the record

. Tanner , 256 I ll. App. 3d at 1093, 629 N.E.2d at 699.7

In the ca se at ba r, the circ uit cour t sua spon te dismi ssed the plaintiff 's petition for certiorariwithout hav ing f irst examined t

he r ecord of t

he underlying procee dings in the Cou rt of Claims , finding that it l acked j urisdi ction ov er the pe tition. As di scussed abov e, though, subject -matt er jurisdiction over petitions for certiorarireli ef from deci sions of

the Court of Claims does lie wit

h the ci rcuit

court. The plaint iff

alle ged i n his pet iti on that t he Cou rt of Claims, inter alia , "fai led to prot ect[his] rights t o a tri al on the merit s" and the reby viol atedhis due pro cess right to be heard on h is claim . An examination of t he record of pro cee din gs in the Court of Claims was theref

ore a condi tion pr ecedentto th e c ir cu it co ur t's dismi ssal of the petiti on because the circ uit cour t could not , solely from the face of the petition, determi ne as a matt er of l aw whether th e p la in ti ff 's due process rights were i n fact viol ated. The case ther efore must be remanded t o the ci rcuit court wit

h direction s that it issue the writ

and upon the re turn of the rec ord of proc eeding s fromthe Cou rt o f Cla ims determi ne on the basi s of that record w hether the plaintiff's due proce ss rights were viol ated.

CONCL USI ON Because the circuit

court did not examine the record of the proceeding s pri or to dismi ssingthe plaintiff

's petition–ins teaderroneous ly holdi ng that it lack ed subject -matt er juri sdict ion over t

he petition–it

was impossi ble for

it t o determi ne whether the plai ntif f' s due process rights were v iolat ed by the unde rlyi ng proc eeding s in the Court of Cla ims. The circuit court t

herefor e must mak e that determi nation on t

he basis of th e rec ord of p roc eed ings in the Court of Claims. For the for egoi ng reas ons, the j udgment of the circui t co urt of C linton C oun ty is hereby reversed. Th e circuit court is directed to issue a writ of certiorarito the Court of Claims, commanding it t o certi fy and tr ansmit the entir e record of

the proce eding s inv olving the plaintiff

's clai m to the circui t court . The circ uit cour t must then det ermine s olely on t he basis of that record whe ther the plaintiff was a fforded his du e process rights.8

If the ci rcuit

court f inds that the plaintiff

's due process rights were satis fied by t he pro cee din gs in the Co urt of Claims, it s hal l quash the w rit of certiorariand dismi ss the pl ai nt if f's petition. If

, however, it f

inds t hat the plaintiff

's due process rights were v iolat ed, it shall grant the writ of certiorariand quash the pr oceeding s and judg ment of t he Court of Claims.
Reversed; cause remanded with directions.

DO NO VAN and W EX STTE N, JJ., co ncur.NO. 5-08-0179 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

___________________________________________________________________________________ LAMONTE LAKE, ) Appeal f rom the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) Clint on County. ) v. ) No. 08-MR-15 ) TH E ST ATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Honorable ) Denn is E. M iddendo rff, Defendant-Appe llee

. ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opini on Fi led : May 19, 2010

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justi ces : Honorable St ephen L. S pomer, J. , with

Honorable James K. Donovan, J., and Hon orable Jame s M . W exstten, J., Con curring.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn ey Lamonte Lake, pro se , Reg. N o. B7 9261, C entralia Correction al Center, for P.O. Box 7711, Centrali a, I L 62801 Appe llant

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn ey [The Stat e has not f iled an answer bri ef, cont ending that i t is not prop erly a p arty to fo r the appeal be cause the c ircuit court dismi ssed the plaintiff 's petition pri or to ser

vic e Appell ee being made on any State entity.]

___________________________________________________________________________________