2021 IL App (1st) 192272-U

No. 1-19-2272 

Order filed February 16, 2021 

First Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ROBERT ANTONSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, and 

SECRETARY OF HUMAN SERVICES JAMES T. 

DIMAS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County. 

No. 18 CH 11422

Honorable 

Raymond W. Mitchell, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Hyman and Coghlan concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We dismiss plaintiff’s appeal as moot. 

¶ 2 Plaintiff Robert Antonson appeals pro se from the circuit court’s order affirming the 

decision of the Illinois Department of Human Services (Department) dismissing his 

administrative appeal as moot. He contends the court erred by affirming the Department’s 

decision. We dismiss plaintiff’s appeal as moot. 
No. 1-19-2272 

- 2 - 

¶ 3 On March 20, 2018, plaintiff applied for a continuation of his family’s Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, which are administered by the Department.1 On 

April 11, 2018, the Department issued to plaintiff a notice of decision, stating the application had 

been denied because he had failed to keep his appointments and, therefore, his eligibility could 

not be established.

¶ 4 On April 20, 2018, plaintiff filed an appeal of the Department’s decision, and an appeal 

hearing was ultimately scheduled for August 1, 2018. On the “Appeal Request Form,” plaintiff 

stated he was appealing the April 11, 2018, notice of decision and actions that were taken with 

respect to his SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. 

¶ 5 In the meantime, on May 10, 2018, the Department issued a notice of decision informing 

plaintiff the March 2018 application had been approved. The notice further provided that his 

eligibility for cash and medical benefits had not been changed as a result of the decision.

¶ 6 On August 1, 2018, plaintiff, his wife, and caseworker, Denise Johnson, appeared at the 

telephonic appeal hearing. At the outset, the administrative law judge (ALJ) attempted to 

ascertain the issue plaintiff was raising in his appeal. Plaintiff stated he was appealing the April 

11, 2018, notice of decision which denied his SNAP benefits. Johnson stated defendant’s 

application had been denied “[f]or failed appointment” and that his monthly SNAP allotment for 

May was not issued on May 3, 2018, as it normally would have been. Instead, Johnson stated, 

plaintiff’s benefits for May 2018 were issued on May 10, and plaintiff confirmed the benefits 

1 The application is not in the record. We note plaintiff’s wife may actually have applied for the 

benefits at issue because her name is listed as the addressee on various documents issued by the 

Department. However, we find this discrepancy is of no consequence given plaintiff, as a member of the 

household, has the right to appeal any adverse action taken with respect to the benefits. See 89 Ill. Adm. 

Code 10.280(a) (eff. May 1, 2019).
No. 1-19-2272 

- 3 - 

were issued on that date. Plaintiff also confirmed he received his SNAP benefits in April, May, 

June, and July of 2018. After the ALJ noted plaintiff’s appeal concerned the denial of his 

application for SNAP benefits, plaintiff stated “that doesn’t address the issue of benefits being 

withheld,” and that he was appealing “because [he] was harassed and after [he] sent [a] letter of 

cease and desist and e[-]mails telling them stop harassing, then they reissued the benefits.”

¶ 7 On August 21, 2018, the Department issued its final administrative decision, dismissing 

plaintiff’s appeal as moot. Therein, the Department observed the issue on appeal was the April 

11, 2018, denial of plaintiff’s SNAP benefits. The Department found that, because the 

Department approved plaintiff’s March 2018 application after he filed the appeal, the underlying 

controversy no longer existed. 

¶ 8 Plaintiff thereafter filed a complaint for judicial review against the Department and its 

secretary, James T. Dimas, pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-

101 et seq. (West 2018)).2 After the Department filed its answer containing the administrative 

record, plaintiff filed a “motion to compel defendant to abide by the court order and answer 

properly to the complaint of administrative review.” The motion asserted the record filed by 

defendants did not contain the entire administrative record and that defendants’ counsel perjured 

himself and “encouraged the spoliation of evidence” by certifying the record filed. Plaintiff 

requested a court order directing defendants to file a “complete” record which included “all email correspondence, documents, complaints of Defendant’s fraud, employees incompetence, 

misconducts, harassments, perjuries used in the process of harassing, physical threats ***, 

2 Grace B. Hou has since replaced Dimas as secretary. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1008(d) (West 2018).
No. 1-19-2272 

- 4 - 

Letters of Cease and Desist from Harassment ***, Client Grievances *** with the required 

answers/investigations as the laws obligates, etc. or any other Courts Orders.”

¶ 9 Plaintiff filed a brief in support of his complaint for administrative review. In his brief, he 

did not raise any argument relating to the propriety of the Department’s determination that the 

appeal was moot but rather contended the Department’s decision was a “retaliation.” He claimed, 

as he did in his motion to compel, defendants had committed perjury and spoliation of evidence 

by filing a “simulacrum” of the administrative record. He also asserted defendants had “cherrypicked” documents and filed them as the administrative record when, in fact, several documents 

were missing from the record, including transcripts of certain hearings, a copy of plaintiff’s file, 

and various complaints of fraud, retaliation, threats, harassment, and discrimination made by 

plaintiff to the Department. Plaintiff attached to his complaint several documents, all of which 

predated his March 2018 application. The attached documents included letters and e-mails to and 

from the Department and its employees, Department grievance and complaint forms, and a court 

order entered in Cook County case No. 16 CH 3654, which ordered the Department to reimburse 

plaintiff and his family for TANF benefits that were withheld pursuant to an October 2015 

sanctions notice.

¶ 10 Defendants filed a brief arguing the Department’s determination the administrative 

appeal was moot was correct because plaintiff had received his May 2018 SNAP benefits, albeit 

one week late. Defendants also argued that, to the extent plaintiff was challenging his TANF 

benefits, the record was devoid of any decision regarding those benefits that was properly raised 

in his administrative appeal. In addition, defendants argued plaintiff’s brief relied on facts 

outside the record and he failed to provide any convincing arguments that the documents he 
No. 1-19-2272 

- 5 - 

contended were missing from the record were in fact considered by the Department in making its 

decision. According to defendants, the circuit court could not consider those documents, as it 

was limited to considering only the evidence which was before the Department.

¶ 11 In reply, plaintiff argued “[n]o mootness nor relief was ever ‘granted’ to Plaintiff.” He 

asserted the relief he originally sought “was restitution of all children’s benefits, SNAP, cash, 

medical, etc., illegally sanctioned by Defendant; a permanent STOP to any retaliatory acts of 

physical threats, intimidation, mental torment, harassment, etc.; a permanent STOP to fraud of 

public funds at State level, and accountability of the offenders.” He again took issue with the 

purported incompleteness of the record filed by defendants and again attached documents 

unrelated to his April 20, 2018, appeal, including e-mails which predated his appeal and a 

transcript from a telephonic hearing that took place on April 9, 2018, in a different, unrelated 

administrative appeal.

¶ 12 In October 2019, the circuit court entered a written order affirming the Department’s final 

administrative decision. In the order, the court agreed with the Department’s conclusion that the 

administrative appeal was rendered moot when, on May 10, 2018, the Department issued the 

second notice of decision which awarded plaintiff the SNAP benefits he sought. The court noted 

plaintiff had filed his own “record” but stated it would be improper for it to consider those 

materials as they were outside the administrative record. In a footnote, the court denied 

plaintiff’s motion to compel, finding it was “of no consequence” given plaintiff had already 

received the SNAP benefits for which he applied. This appeal followed.

¶ 13 On appeal, plaintiff contends the circuit court erred in affirming the Department’s final 

administrative decision.
No. 1-19-2272 

- 6 - 

¶ 14 As an initial matter, we note plaintiff has failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court 

Rules 341 (eff. May 25, 2018) and 342 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019), which govern the form and content of 

appellate briefs and appendices. Indeed, plaintiff’s brief contains several glaring deficiencies, 

which has hindered our ability to meaningfully review his claims of error. 

¶ 15 First, plaintiff’s statement of facts does not present the facts and procedural history in a 

manner that aids our understanding of the case, or in a manner that is clear, accurate, free from 

argument and comment, and with appropriate reference to the record on appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 

341(h)(6) (eff. May 25, 2018). Instead, the statement of facts is almost entirely argumentative, 

sets forth several purported facts and conclusions that have no support in the record, and raises 

allegations of perjury, fraud, corruption, and official misconduct on the part of the Department’s 

employees, the attorney general’s office, and the judiciary. Second, the points stated in plaintiff’s 

“Points and Authorities” section of his brief do not correspond with the arguments raised in the 

argument section of his brief. See Ill S. Ct. R. 341(h)(1) (eff. May 25, 2018) (the “Points and 

Authorities” section of an appellate brief “shall consist of the heading of the points and subpoints 

as in the Argument”). Third, plaintiff fails to set forth the standard of review applicable to his 

claims of error. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(3) (eff. May 25, 2018). Fourth, the argument sections of 

plaintiff’s opening and reply briefs are devoid of any citation to legal authority or the pertinent 

pages of the record and fails to set forth a comprehensible legal argument relating to the 

propriety of the Department’s final administrative decision. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. May 

25, 2018); People v. Macias, 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 88 (reviewing court is entitled to have 

pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented).
No. 1-19-2272 

- 7 - 

¶ 16 Fifth, the appendix to plaintiff’s brief does not include a table of contents to the appendix, 

the judgment appealed from, the Department’s final administrative decision, the notice of appeal, 

or a complete table of contents with page references of the record on appeal as required by Rule 

342. Ill. S. Ct. R. 342 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). Rather, plaintiff appended to his brief several items, 

none of which are contained in the record on appeal. See Morse v. Donati, 2019 IL App (2d) 

180328, ¶ 16 (“If materials are not taken from the record, they may not be placed before us in an 

appendix and will be disregarded.”).

¶ 17 The purpose of the rules relating to the form and content of appellate briefs is to require 

parties to present clear and orderly arguments, supported by citations of authority and the record, 

so we can ascertain and dispose of the issues raised. Gruby v. Department of Public Health, 2015 

IL App (2d) 140790, ¶ 12. This court is not a depository into which a party may dump the burden 

of argument and research. People ex rel. Illinois Department of Labor v. E.R.H. Enterprises, 

2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56. Compliance with these rules is mandatory, and plaintiff’s status as a selfrepresented litigant does not excuse his compliance. Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, 

¶ 8.

¶ 18 Given the glaring deficiencies in plaintiff’s brief, we would be within our discretion to 

strike plaintiff’s brief and dismiss his appeal. See L.D.S., LLC v. Southern Cross Food, Ltd., 

2017 IL App (1st) 163058, ¶ 32 (appellate court has inherent authority to dismiss an appeal 

where appellant fails to comply with the rules relating to form and content of appellate briefs). 

However, because the merits of the case can be ascertained from the record and we have the 

benefit of a cogent brief from defendants, we decline to dismiss the appeal and will consider the 

merits. That said, we will not consider the documents improperly appended to plaintiff’s brief 
No. 1-19-2272 

- 8 - 

(Morse, 2019 IL App (2d) 180328, ¶ 16), and we caution plaintiff that his failure to fully comply 

with Rules 341 and 342 in the future may result in the dismissal of his appeal without 

consideration of the merits.3

¶ 19 Turning to the merits, we conclude we must dismiss plaintiff’s appeal as moot. On appeal 

from the circuit court’s review of an administrative decision, we review the agency’s decision, 

not the circuit court’s. Doe Three v. Department of Public Health, 2017 IL App (1st) 162548, 

¶ 25. Here, the Department determined plaintiff’s administrative appeal was moot. Whether a 

case has been rendered moot is a question of law. People v. Custer, 2019 IL 123339, ¶ 17. 

Accordingly, our review is de novo. Board of Education of City of Chicago v. Illinois 

Educational Labor Relations Board, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 15.

¶ 20 “The existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction, 

and courts of review will generally not decide abstract, hypothetical, or moot questions.” In re 

Andrea F., 208 Ill. 2d 148, 156 (2003). An appeal is moot when a reviewing court cannot grant 

the appealing party effectual relief. In re Marriage of Donald B., 2014 IL 115463, ¶ 23. In other 

words, “[m]ootness occurs once the plaintiff has secured what he basically sought and a 

resolution of the issues could not have any practical effect on the existing controversy.” Hanna v. 

City of Chicago, 382 Ill. App. 3d 672, 677 (2008). The proper course of action for a court to take 

when a case has been rendered moot is to dismiss it. In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 364 

(2009). 

3 We take notice that this appeal is one of seven filed by plaintiff since 2018. E.g., Curtis v. Lofy, 

394 Ill. App. 3d 170, 172 (2009) (reviewing court may take judicial notice of court records). Including the 

case at bar, three of those appeals are pending.
No. 1-19-2272 

- 9 - 

¶ 21 In this case, the record shows, on March 20, 2018 plaintiff applied for a continuation of 

his SNAP benefits. On April 11, 2018, the Department issued to plaintiff a notice of decision 

informing him the application had been denied because he had failed to keep appointments, 

which were required to confirm his eligibility for continued benefits. On April 20, 2018, plaintiff 

filed his administrative appeal, stating the decision from which he was appealing was issued on 

April 11, 2018. On May 10, 2018, before the hearing on plaintiff’s administrative appeal took 

place, the Department issued a second notice of decision, informing plaintiff his March 20, 2018, 

application for SNAP benefits had been approved. When the Department issued its May 10, 

2018, notice of decision, plaintiff “secured what he basically sought and a resolution of the 

issues could not have [had] any practical effect on the existing controversy.” Hanna, 382 Ill. 

App. 3d at 677. Accordingly, the Department correctly determined his administrative appeal was 

moot. 

¶ 22 In reaching our conclusion, we note both plaintiff’s and Jones’s testimony at the 

administrative appeal hearing confirm plaintiff’s appeal was moot. Plaintiff informed the ALJ his 

appeal concerned the April 11, 2018, notice of decision, in which the Department notified him 

his March 20, 2018, application had been denied, and the record does not indicate any other 

adverse action with respect to his receipt of benefits was taken on that date. However, when 

asked whether plaintiff had in fact received his May 2018 benefits, Jones informed the ALJ

plaintiff’s SNAP benefits for May 2018 were delayed but issued on May 10, 2018, a fact plaintiff 

confirmed. 

¶ 23 To the extent plaintiff challenges alleged sanctions to his SNAP, TANF, and other 

benefits, we observe plaintiff’s administrative appeal specifically stated he was challenging the 
No. 1-19-2272 

- 10 - 

Department’s April 11, 2018, notice of decision. The record does not contain any indication any 

of his benefits were sanctioned as part of the April 11, 2018, decision. In fact, Jones’s testimony 

at the administrative hearing shows plaintiff’s SNAP and TANF benefits remained the same both 

before and after he submitted his March 20, 2018, application. Accordingly, any sanctions of 

which plaintiff complains were not properly before the ALJ.

¶ 24 Finally, we note that, to the extent plaintiff is challenging the court’s denial of his

“motion to compel defendant to abide by the court order and answer properly to the complaint of 

administrative review,” we need not address the issue because the appeal is moot.

¶ 25 For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

¶ 26 Appeal dismissed.