2014 IL App (3d) 1 3 07 31

O pinion filed November 25, 2014

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THRID DISTRICT

A.D., 2014

RONNIE CARROLL, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 9 th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiff

- Appell ant , ) Knox County, Illinois. ) ) Appeal No. 3

- 1 3

- 07 31 ) Circuit No. 13

- MR

- 9 7

v. ) ) ) KEVWE AKPORE and SALVADOR ) GODINEZ, ) Hono rable ) Paul L. Mangieri, Defendant s

- Appell ees

. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court with opinion

. Justice s Schmidt and O'Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 The plaintiff, Ronnie Carroll, an inmate at the Hill Correctional Center (HCC) , filed a pro

se mandamus petition against Kevwe Akpore, HCC w arden, and Salvador Godinez, Director
, Department of Corrections (DOC). The petition alleged that DOC and HCC were not in
compliance with certain statutory requirements regarding sanitary food preparation at HCC. 410

ILCS 650/10 (West 2010). Plaintiff asked the trial court to issue an order of mandamus
requiring the defendants to comply with those statutory food preparation requirements. Within2 days of the plaintiff's filing of this petition with the circuit clerk, the trial court reviewed the
petition and sua sponte entered an order dismiss ing the petition. The court took this action
before the named defendants or anyone else connected with the DOC was served. Accordingly,
no attorney ever appeared on behalf of the named defendants or the DOC. The plaintiff filed a

motion to vacate the or der of dismissal, which was promptly denied by the trial court. The
plaintiff then filed a timely notice of appeal. It appears from the record that the defendants,
having never been served with summons, were not notified of the notice of appeal.

¶ 2 This appeal is unusual because the appellant appears pro se and no one appears on
behalf of the appell ees. However, because the issue is one that can easily be decided without the
aid of an appellee's brief, we can address the matter. Mason v. Snyder , 3 32 Ill. App. 3d 834
(2002). We further note that the failure to serve a copy of a notice of appeal upon an opposing
party does not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction since the only jurisdictional step in
appealing a final judgment is the filing o f a notice of appeal. Lene ehan v. Township Officers
Electoral Board of Schaumburg Township , 2013 IL App (1 st ) 130619 ¶ 27 ( citing Simmons v.
Chicago Housing Authority , 267 Ill. App. 3d 545, 551 (1994) )

. The record herein established

that the trial court issued a final and appealable order and that the plaintiff filed a timely notice of
appeal. We therefore have jurisdiction to address the plaintiff's appeal.

¶ 3 The issue on appeal is a simple one: can the trial court dismiss sua sponte a petition
seeking mandamus relief. T he court in Mason held that a trial court has an inherent authority to
dismiss any civil complaint sua sponte

. Mason , 332 Ill. App. 3d at 840. However, more recent
decisions have called this holding into question. In People v. Shellstrom , 345 Ill. App. 3d 175

(2003) , the appellate court rejected the inherent authority analysis and held that the mandamus

statute, which is contained in the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/14

- 103 (West 2010) ) (the3 Code) ) does not au thorize the trial court to summarily dismiss a complaint for mandamus

.
Shellstrom , 345 Ill. App. 3d at 177. Instead, the Code provides a clear procedural framework for

a trial court to follow when a mandamus petition is filed. The statutory framework in cludes
issuance of summons by the circuit clerk and does not provide for summary dismissal prior to

issuance of a summons. Id

. On rev iew, however, our supreme court in Shellstrom held that a
petition labeled as a mandamus petition c ould be summarily dism issed if the relief sought was
cognizable in a postconviction petition , even if the petitioner did not proceed under the Post

Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122

- 1 et seq. (West 2002))

. People v. Shellstrom , 216 Ill.

2d 45, 50 (2005). Our supreme court held that, since the relief sought in the mandamus petition
was relief that could have been sought in a postconviction petition it was proper for the trial

court to consider the petition under the postconviction framework and dismiss the petition as
being frivolous and patently without merit. Id.

¶ 4 In the instant matter, the relief sought by in the mandamus petition was to require the
defendants to comply with certain statutory requirements regarding food preparation in the
prison cafeteria. The relief sought by the petitioner was , clearly
, not an issue that could be
addressed in a postconviction petition. The trial cou rt, therefore, erred in dismissing the

mandamus petition without allowing the petition to be served upon the defendants
, and the cause

must be remanded to the circuit court to allow the matter to proceed

. In remanding the matter,

we note that we have not addressed the merits of the petition. The fact that the petition may have
no merit does not allow the trial court to disregard the procedural framework provided in the

Code and the mandamus statute. Shellstrom , 345 Ill. App. 3d at 179.

¶ 5 For the fore going reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Knox County is reversed,
and the cause is remanded for service of the petition upon the defendants.4 ¶ 6 Reversed and remanded.