Court Opinion

ID: 9390182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:04:44.129732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.202686
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 221509-U
                                             No. 1-22-1509
                                                                                     Third Division
                                                                                     April 26, 2023

     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
     ______________________________________________________________________________

                                                    )
     PETER GAKUBA,                                  )   Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                    )   of Cook County.
           Plaintiff-Appellant,                     )
                                                    )   No. 22 CH 1200
     v.                                             )
                                                    )   The Honorable
     THE ILLINOIS PRISONER REVIEW BOARD,            )   Thaddeus L. Wilson,
                                                    )   Judge Presiding.
           Defendant-Appellee.                      )
                                                    )
     ______________________________________________________________________________

                JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court.
                Presiding Justice McBride and Justice Burke concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1         Held: Plaintiff’s complaint for habeas corpus relief was properly dismissed, where his
                 claims are barred by collateral estoppel and where his voidness challenge lacks
                 merit.

¶2         In 2006, plaintiff Peter Gakuba was charged with three counts of aggravated criminal

       sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16(d) (West 2006)) and, after a jury trial, he was convicted and

       sentenced to 12 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, followed by two years of

       mandatory supervised release (MSR). Plaintiff’s conviction was affirmed on appeal, and a
     No. 1-22-1509

         postconviction petition was summarily dismissed at the first stage of proceedings. The instant

         case arises from a subsequent pro se complaint seeking habeas corpus relief, in which plaintiff

         claims that his conviction was void. Defendant, the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, filed a

         motion to dismiss the habeas complaint, which the circuit court granted. Plaintiff now appeals

         and, for the reasons set forth below, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal.

¶3                                            BACKGROUND

¶4                                       Conviction and Sentencing

¶5           A detailed recitation of the facts surrounding plaintiff’s conviction is contained in the

         decision issued on direct appeal. People v. Gakuba, 2017 IL App (2d) 150744-U, ¶¶ 4-43. 1 We

         set forth here only those facts necessary to an understanding of the issues on this appeal.

¶6           On November 4, 2006, M.S., a 14-year-old boy, was reported missing by his parents. After

         he was located the next day, M.S. was interviewed by Rockton police, and informed officers

         that he had spent the night in a nearby hotel in Rockford with a man named “Phil” whom he

         had met online. The Rockton police department contacted the Illinois State Police to assist with

         the investigation, and Sergeant Charles O’Brien and Detective Daniel Balsley of the Illinois

         State Police spoke to M.S. and prepared reports of the encounter.

¶7           M.S. told the officers that, during their contact online, Phil had identified himself as an 18-

         year-old businessman who was going to be in the Rockford area on business, and the two

             1
              We note that plaintiff’s direct appeal and postconviction appeal were both considered by the
     Second District, as plaintiff’s trial occurred in Winnebago County. While plaintiff’s complaint for habeas
     corpus was therefore required to be filed in Winnebago County, as well (see 735 ILCS 5/10-103 (West
     2020)), plaintiff instead filed it in Cook County. As defendant chose not to raise a claim of improper
     venue below, such a claim has been waived and we may consider the merits of plaintiff’s complaint here.
     See 735 ILCS 5/2-104(b) (West 2020) (all objections of improper venue are waived by a defendant unless
     a timely motion to transfer to a proper venue is made by the defendant); Williams v. Illinois State
     Scholarship Comm’n, 139 Ill. 2d 24, 40 (1990) (“statutory venue requirements are procedural only, and
     have no relation to the power of a court to decide the merits of a case”).
                                                         2
     No. 1-22-1509

        arranged to meet. M.S. gave Phil directions to his neighborhood, and Phil picked M.S. up in a

        silver sedan; M.S. observed that Phil did not appear to be 18 years old and did not resemble a

        photograph posted online. Phil took M.S. to several stores, including to a Hollywood Video

        store, and they ultimately ended up in a hotel room at the Marriott Courtyard hotel; M.S. drew

        a diagram of the room’s location for the officers. M.S. reported that, while they were in the

        hotel room, the two had oral sex and Phil anally penetrated him. The next morning, Phil took

        M.S. to a restaurant for breakfast and dropped him off at a local bowling alley.

¶8         After speaking with M.S., O’Brien went to the Marriott Courtyard hotel and spoke with a

        desk clerk, and determined that the room described by M.S. was room 101. Hotel records

        revealed that room 101 had been booked by plaintiff. O’Brien also observed a silver sedan

        parked in the first parking stall outside an exit door adjacent to the room. O’Brien then spoke

        by telephone to a manager at the Hollywood Video store, who informed him that plaintiff had

        rented six movies from the store and that plaintiff’s account was registered to an address in

        Maryland. O’Brien returned to the hotel, where he, a master sergeant with the Illinois State

        Police, and an assistant manager of the hotel approached room 101. Plaintiff refused to answer

        their knock, even after O’Brien identified himself as a police officer, so they used a hotel

        master key to open the door. They informed plaintiff that they were conducting an investigation

        which required him to come to the station; when plaintiff asked if he was under arrest, O’Brien

        told plaintiff that he was not, but that he “had no option to decline.” The only personal item

        taken from the room was plaintiff’s New York driver’s license.

¶9         Plaintiff was ultimately charged in Winnebago County with three counts of aggravated

        sexual abuse, which required the State to establish that he had committed an act of sexual

        penetration on M.S., who was at least 13 years of age but under 17 years of age when the act

                                                     3
       No. 1-22-1509

          was committed, and that plaintiff was at least 5 years older than M.S. See 720 ILCS 5/12-16(d)

          (West 2006). The case was the subject of extensive pretrial litigation, including several motions

          for substitution of judge for cause which were denied, as well as several motions to suppress

          evidence. As relevant to the instant appeal, the trial court found that the officers’ warrantless

          entry into plaintiff’s hotel room was improper and granted a motion to suppress evidence of

          the contents of the room. The trial court also granted plaintiff’s motion to suppress evidence

          under the Video Privacy Protection Act (Video Privacy Act) (18 U.S.C. § 2710 (2006)), which

          prohibits video rental providers from disclosing “personally identifiable information” about

          their customers to law enforcement agencies without a valid court order, subpoena, or warrant.

          During trial, however, the trial court denied plaintiff’s request to suppress O’Brien’s testimony

          as to plaintiff’s birthdate, finding that the police had obtained plaintiff’s date of birth

          independently from the suppressed evidence—i.e., during the booking process after his arrest.

¶ 10         The jury found plaintiff guilty of all three counts, and the trial court sentenced plaintiff to

          four years on each count, to be served consecutively. In April 2021, plaintiff was paroled under

          an Interstate Compact Agreement with Maryland, and is serving a two-year term of MSR in

          that state. Plaintiff’s MSR term expires on April 27, 2023.

¶ 11                                           Direct Appeal

¶ 12         After his conviction, plaintiff filed a direct appeal in the Second District, in which he raised

          seven claims. See Gakuba, 2017 IL App (2d) 150744-U, ¶ 1 (enumerating claims raised on

          appeal). As relevant to the instant appeal, plaintiff contended (1) that evidence of his name and

          birthdate was improperly admitted and (2) the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motions

          for substitution of judge.

                                                        4
       No. 1-22-1509

¶ 13          With respect to the issue of his name and birthdate, the appellate court found that plaintiff’s

          name and age were derived from sources independent of any illegal police conduct. Id. ¶ 49.

          Specifically, the appellate court noted that O’Brien testified at the suppression hearing that he

          learned plaintiff’s name from the desk clerk at the Marriott Courtyard hotel, which occurred

          prior to his contacting the video store, entering the hotel room, or interviewing plaintiff at the

          police station. Id. ¶ 50. The court further found that the record demonstrated that plaintiff’s

          date of birth was discovered by independent means, as O’Brien testified during trial that

          plaintiff verbally gave him the information as part of the arrest and booking process. Id. ¶ 51.

          The appellate court found unpersuasive plaintiff’s contention that the trial court improperly

          allowed the prosecutor to speak with O’Brien privately while he was in the midst of testifying,

          as there was no indication that O’Brien’s testimony was influenced or changed as a result of

          the discussion. Id. ¶¶ 53-56. The court further found no merit to plaintiff’s claims that O’Brien

          was a “perjurer” or that the prosecutor had suborned perjury by eliciting his testimony as to

          plaintiff’s name and birthdate. Id. ¶ 57.

¶ 14          With respect to plaintiff’s claims as to his motions for substitution of judge, the appellate

          court found that plaintiff failed to offer any facts to support a claim that the trial judge harbored

          any animus towards him. Id. ¶ 106. The court noted that most of plaintiff’s allegations

          concerned adverse rulings made by the judge, which did not serve as a basis for finding that

          plaintiff had suffered prejudice from the denial of the motions for substitution of judge. Id. ¶

          107. The appellate court also found that plaintiff’s motion to substitute the judge who was in

          the process of rendering a decision on the motions for substitution of the trial judge was

          properly denied, as the motion was neither timely filed nor supported by affidavit. Id. ¶ 108.

                                                         5
       No. 1-22-1509

¶ 15         Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed plaintiff’s conviction and sentence in all respects.

          Id. ¶ 121. Plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court, which

          was denied. People v. Gakuba, No. 122289 (Ill. Sept. 27, 2017).

¶ 16                                       Postconviction Petition

¶ 17         In June 2017, plaintiff filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which alleged the

          same seven claims he raised on direct appeal. People v. Gakuba, 2019 IL App (2d) 170794-U,

          ¶ 18. The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition, finding it frivolous and patently

          without merit. Id. ¶ 19. The circuit court found that all claims which were raised or could have

          been raised on direct appeal were barred by the principles of res judicata. Id. Additionally, to

          the extent that any of the claims could be characterized as claims alleging ineffective assistance

          of counsel, the circuit court found that such claims were frivolous and patently without merit,

          as plaintiff did not allege how the purported failures fell below an objective standard of

          reasonableness or prejudiced plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 19-21. The circuit court further found that

          plaintiff’s claims as to counsel’s lack of preparation were affirmatively rebutted by the record,

          which demonstrated a trial strategy of attacking the victim’s credibility and memory,

          questioning the weight and relevance of certain physical evidence, and highlighting

          inconsistencies in the evidence. Id. ¶ 21.

¶ 18         Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his postconviction petition, and the Second District

          affirmed. Id. ¶ 39. As is relevant to the instant appeal, the appellate court found that plaintiff’s

          arguments as to the improper admission of his name and birthdate were identical to the claims

          that it had previously rejected on direct appeal. Id. ¶ 30. The appellate court similarly found

          that plaintiff’s arguments as to the denial of his motions for substitution of judge for cause had

                                                         6
       No. 1-22-1509

           been previously considered on direct appeal. Id. ¶ 36. Accordingly, the court found that res

           judicata barred plaintiff’s relitigation of those claims. Id. ¶¶ 30, 36.

¶ 19           Plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court, which was

           denied. People v. Gakuba, No. 124481 (Ill. Mar. 20, 2019). Plaintiff then filed a petition for

           writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was also denied. Gakuba v.

           Illinois, 139 S. Ct. 2680 (2019).

¶ 20                                      Proceedings in Other Courts

¶ 21           While his postconviction appeal was pending—and thereafter—plaintiff commenced filing

           complaints for habeas corpus in various jurisdictions. 2 First, plaintiff filed a habeas complaint

           in the federal district court for the northern district of Illinois, which again raised the same

           seven claims plaintiff had previously raised on direct appeal. Gakuba v. Brannon, No. 17 C

           50337, 2017 WL 11473882 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2017). Accordingly, the district court denied

           plaintiff’s complaint (Gakuba, No. 17 C 50337, 2017 WL 11473882 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2017)

           (dismissing grounds V through VII), 2018 WL 10127255 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2018) (denying

           grounds I through IV)), and the Seventh Circuit denied plaintiff’s application for a certificate

           of appealability, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right (Gakuba

           v. Neese, No. 18-3398, 2019 WL 12536617 (7th Cir. June 24, 2019)). The United States

           Supreme Court also denied plaintiff’s subsequent petition for writ of certiorari. Gakuba v.

           Neese, 140 S. Ct. 831 (2020). Plaintiff attempted to challenge this denial again in 2022, which

           was denied by the district court (Gakuba v. Neese, No. 17 C 50337, 2022 WL 18145185 (N.D.

               2
                We note that a search for “Peter Gakuba” on Westlaw returns a total of 92 results, all stemming
       from his criminal charges, 76 of which are in Illinois state and federal courts. The remaining results are
       from federal courts throughout the country. We discuss here only those cases which provide context for
       our discussion of the habeas complaint at issue on appeal.
                                                           7
       No. 1-22-1509

           Ill. May 27, 2022), and the Seventh Circuit once again denied plaintiff’s request for a certificate

           of appealability (Gakuba v. Dodd, No. 22-1982, 2022 WL 18145557 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2022)).

           The United States Supreme Court again denied plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari, and

           directed the clerk not to accept any further petitions from plaintiff in noncriminal matters

           unless such petition was properly filed and docketing fee paid, “[a]s petitioner has repeatedly

           abused this Court’s process.” Gakuba v. Dodd, 143 S. Ct. 629 (2023).

¶ 22           Next, it appears that plaintiff filed habeas complaints in federal courts in New York and

           Maryland, which were transferred to the Seventh Circuit and to the northern district of Illinois,

           respectively. 3 See In re Gakuba, No. 21 CV 8121, 2021 WL 5336941 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2021)

           (referencing a habeas complaint which was transferred to the Seventh Circuit); Gakuba v.

           Warden, No. 21-7450, 2022 WL 256342 (4th Cir. Jan. 26, 2022) (referencing a habeas

           complaint which was transferred to the northern district of Illinois). Plaintiff then filed another

           habeas complaint in the federal district court for the southern district of New York, which was

           dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to plaintiff’s failure to receive authorization from the

           appropriate court of appeals, as required under federal law. Gakuba v. Doe, No. 22 CV 1039,

           2022 WL 561669 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022). Plaintiff similarly filed another habeas complaint

           in the federal district court in Maryland, which was dismissed as an unauthorized successive

           filing, and was denied a certificate of appealability from the Fourth Circuit. Gakuba v.

           Maryland Attorney General’s Office, No. 23-6012, 2023 WL 2625616 (4th Cir. Mar. 24,

           2023).

               3
                 Plaintiff may have also filed a habeas complaint in federal court in Pennsylvania, based on a
       footnote in one of his other federal cases. See Gakuba v. Doe, No. 22 CV 1039, 22 WL 561669 (Feb. 22,
       2022) (citing In re Gakuba, No. 21 CV 04322 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2021)) (noting that plaintiff’s petition in
       the Pennsylvania case was dismissed as he had not obtained prior approval from the Court of Appeals).
                                                           8
       No. 1-22-1509

¶ 23         Plaintiff then returned to federal court in Illinois, where he filed an application for leave to

          file a successive habeas complaint with the Seventh Circuit. Gakuba v. Jeffreys, No. 22-3039,

          2022 WL 18863593 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2022). The Seventh Circuit denied plaintiff’s

          application, finding that most of the claims merely repeated the theories from prior filings, and

          imposed a $500 fine for his “repetitive litigation.” Id. The United States Supreme Court again

          denied plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari. Gakuba v. Jeffreys, 143 S. Ct. 848 (2023).

          Following the Seventh Circuit’s denial, plaintiff filed a habeas complaint in federal district

          court in California, which transferred the case to the northern district of Illinois. Gakuba v.

          California Attorney General, No. 22 CV 07698, 2022 WL 17813143 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16,

          2022).

¶ 24         Earlier this year, plaintiff filed a habeas complaint in the federal district court in Maine,

          which was dismissed for failure to receive authorization from the Court of Appeals. Gakuba v.

          Attorney General of Maine, No. 23 CV 00009, 2023 WL 349328 (D. Me. Jan. 18, 2023)

          (magistrate judge recommended decision); 2023 WL 315697 (D. Me. Jan. 19, 2023) (district

          court dismissal). Plaintiff filed another habeas complaint in federal court in the District of

          Columbia, which was dismissed for similar reasons. Gakuba v. D.C. Attorney General, No.

          23-0126, 2023 WL 1070566 (D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2023). Finally, plaintiff also filed another habeas

          complaint in federal court in California, which dismissed the complaint as (1) seven of the

          claims were identical to previously-raised claims that had already been rejected on their merits

          and (2) to the extent plaintiff raised a new ground, he had not received authorization from the

          Court of Appeals prior to filing his successive complaint. Gakuba v. California Attorney

          General, No. 22 CV 09243, 2023 WL 2356696 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023).

                                                        9
       No. 1-22-1509

¶ 25           Additionally, while plaintiff was engaged in litigation in federal court, he was also filing

           habeas complaints in Illinois state courts. In 2020, plaintiff filed a habeas complaint in the

           circuit court of Cook County, which was transferred to the circuit court of Winnebago County.

           Gakuba v. Grissom, No. 20 CH 06427 (Cir. Ct. Cook Co. Dec. 14, 2021). Plaintiff appealed

           the transfer order to this court, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as plaintiff

           had not sought leave to appeal and the motion to transfer venue was not otherwise an

           appealable order. Gakuba v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, Nos. 1-21-1293, 1-21-1616

           (cons.) (1st Dist. Feb. 10, 2022). Plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Illinois

           Supreme Court, which was denied. Gakuba v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, No. 128251 (Ill.

           May 25, 2022). While his Cook County habeas complaint was pending, plaintiff filed a habeas

           complaint in the circuit court of Sangamon County, which similarly transferred the case to the

           circuit court of Winnebago County. Gakuba v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, 2021 MR

           001206 (Cir. Ct. Sangamon Co. Jan. 3, 2022). Plaintiff appealed the transfer order to the Fourth

           District, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Gakuba v. Illinois Prisoner Review

           Board, No. 4-22-0003 (4th Dist. Feb. 14, 2022). Plaintiff also filed a petition for leave to appeal

           this dismissal before the Illinois Supreme Court, which was denied. Gakuba v. Illinois Prisoner

           Review Board, No. 128256 (Ill. May 25, 2022). The same day plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed

           by the Fourth District—and the same day plaintiff filed the habeas complaint at issue in the

           instant case—he also filed another habeas complaint in Sangamon County, which was

           ultimately dismissed. Gakuba v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, No. 2022 MX 000185 (Cir.

           Ct. Sangamon Co. Sept. 5, 2022).4 Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to file a habeas

               4
                 The clerk of Sangamon County’s electronic docket search shows that defendant filed a motion
       to dismiss that case on the same day it filed the motion to dismiss that is at issue in the instant appeal. On
       September 5, 2022, the circuit court of Sangamon County dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. Gakuba v.
       Illinois Prisoner Review Board, No. 2022 MX 000185 (Cir. Ct. Sangamon Co. Sept. 5, 2022). Plaintiff
                                                             10
       No. 1-22-1509

           complaint directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, which was also denied (Gakuba v. Illinois

           Prisoner Review Board, No. 129009 (Ill. Nov. 3, 2022)), and the United States Supreme Court

           denied plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari (Gakuba v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, 143

           S. Ct. 641 (2023)).

¶ 26                                       Complaint for Habeas Corpus

¶ 27           In February 2022, plaintiff filed the instant pro se complaint for habeas corpus, in which

           he raised three claims. First, plaintiff alleged that his conviction was based on a void

           indictment, as O’Brien’s grand jury testimony concerning plaintiff’s name and birthdate was

           based on information he obtained from Hollywood Video in violation of the Video Privacy

           Act. Second, plaintiff alleged that his conviction was based on false pretenses, as O’Brien

           allegedly lied about independently obtaining plaintiff’s name and birthdate during the booking

           process. Third, plaintiff alleged that his motions for substitution of the trial judge for cause

           were improperly denied, meaning that he was tried before a biased judge.

¶ 28           Defendant filed a combined motion to dismiss the habeas complaint pursuant to section 2-

           619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2020)). Defendant

           claimed that the complaint should be dismissed under section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS

           5/2-619 (West 2020)) since it was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and was

           preempted by his ongoing litigation of the same claims elsewhere, and claimed that it should

           be dismissed under section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2020)) since it was

           meritless as a matter of law.

       filed a notice of appeal in the Fourth District, which remains pending. Gakuba v. Illinois Prisoner Review
       Board, No. 4-22-0809 (4th Dist.).
                                                           11
       No. 1-22-1509

¶ 29         In response, plaintiff contended that the habeas complaint should not be dismissed, and

          filed a motion for summary judgment, in which he claimed that he was entitled to judgment as

          a matter of law, as his biographical information was obtained in violation of the Video Privacy

          Act, which tainted all subsequent proceedings.

¶ 30         On October 4, 2022, the circuit court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that

          (1) the claims were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, (2) plaintiff was already

          pursuing the same claims in another judicial forum, and (3) the complaint failed to state a claim

          upon which relief may be granted. On the same day, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and this

          appeal follows.

¶ 31                                            ANALYSIS

¶ 32         On appeal, plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in granting defendant’s motion to

          dismiss his habeas complaint. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was based on both sections 2-

          615 and 2-619 of the Code. A motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code challenges

          the legal sufficiency of the complaint by alleging defects on its face. Young v. Bryco Arms, 213

          Ill. 2d 433, 440 (2004); Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223, 228 (2003). The critical inquiry is

          whether the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action upon which

          relief may be granted. Wakulich, 203 Ill. 2d at 228. In making this determination, all well-

          pleaded facts in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts

          are taken as true. Young, 213 Ill. 2d at 441. In addition, we construe the allegations in the

          complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. We review de novo an order granting

          a section 2-615 motion to dismiss. Id. at 440; Wakulich, 203 Ill. 2d at 228. We may affirm on

          any basis appearing in the record, whether or not the circuit court relied on that basis or its

          reasoning was correct. Ray Dancer, Inc. v. DMC Corp., 230 Ill. App. 3d 40, 50 (1992).

                                                       12
       No. 1-22-1509

¶ 33         A motion to dismiss under section 2-619 admits the legal sufficiency of all well-pleaded

          facts but allows for the dismissal of claims barred by an affirmative matter defeating those

          claims or avoiding their legal effect. Janda v. United States Cellular Corp., 2011 IL App (1st)

          103552, ¶ 83 (citing DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59 (2006)). When reviewing a motion

          to dismiss under section 2-619, “a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in plaintiffs’

          complaint and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn in plaintiffs’ favor.” Morr-Fitz, Inc.

          v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill. 2d 474, 488 (2008). Additionally, a cause of action should not be

          dismissed under section 2-619 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved

          that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill. 2d 263, 277-78 (2003).

          As with a section 2-615 motion, for a section 2-619 dismissal, our standard of review is

          de novo. Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006);

          Morr-Fitz, Inc., 231 Ill. 2d at 488. Additionally, as with a section 2-615 dismissal, even if the

          circuit court dismissed on an improper ground, a reviewing court may affirm the dismissal if

          the record supports a proper ground for dismissal. See Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long

          Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248, 261 (2004) (when reviewing a section 2-619 dismissal, we can affirm

          “on any basis present in the record”); In re Marriage of Gary, 384 Ill. App. 3d 979, 987 (2008)

          (“we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, regardless of whether the trial court

          based its decision on the proper ground”).

¶ 34         In this case, plaintiff’s complaint was one for habeas corpus relief, which is governed by

          article X of the Code. See 735 ILCS 5/10-101 et seq. (West 2020). Section 10-124 of the Code

          provides, in relevant part, that a prisoner who is in custody may be discharged (1) “[w]here the

          court has exceeded the limit of its jurisdiction, either as to the matter, place, sum or person”;

          (2) “[w]here, though the original imprisonment was lawful, nevertheless, by some act,

                                                        13
       No. 1-22-1509

           omission or event which has subsequently taken place, the party has become entitled to be

           discharged”; or (3) “[w]here the process appears to have been obtained by false pretense or

           bribery.” 735 ILCS 5/10-124(1), (2), (6) (West 2020). Here, plaintiff contended that habeas

           relief was appropriate since (1) his conviction was based on a void indictment, as O’Brien’s

           grand jury testimony concerning plaintiff’s name and birthdate was based on information he

           obtained from Hollywood Video in violation of the Video Privacy Act; (2) his conviction was

           based on false pretenses, as O’Brien allegedly lied about independently obtaining plaintiff’s

           name and birthdate during the booking process; and (3) his motions for substitution of the trial

           judge for cause were improperly denied, meaning that he was tried before a biased judge. 5 We

           agree with the circuit court, however, that all of these claims are barred by collateral estoppel.

¶ 35           Collateral estoppel is an equitable doctrine which promotes fairness and judicial economy

           by preventing the relitigation of issues that have already been resolved in earlier actions. Du

           Page Forklift Service, Inc. v. Material Handling Services, Inc., 195 Ill. 2d 71, 77 (2001). There

           are three requirements for application of collateral estoppel: “(1) the issue decided in the prior

           adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question, (2) there was a final

           judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3) the party against whom estoppel is

           asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” Gumma v. White, 216

           Ill. 2d 23, 28 (2005). Additionally, “ ‘[f]or purposes of applying the doctrine of collateral

           estoppel, finality requires that the potential for appellate review must have been exhausted.’ ”

           State Building Venture v. O’Donnell, 239 Ill. 2d 151, 158-59 (2010) (quoting Ballweg v. City

           of Springfield, 114 Ill. 2d 107, 113 (1986)).

               We note that it is challenging to determine exactly what plaintiff is arguing, as his habeas
               5

       complaint is not clear.
                                                           14
       No. 1-22-1509

¶ 36          In this case, the issues raised by plaintiff—namely, the alleged violation of the Video

          Privacy Act and the subsequent testimony by O’Brien that plaintiff’s name and birthdate were

          independently obtained during the booking process, as well as the denial of the motions for

          substitution of judge for cause—have been repeatedly considered and rejected by our courts.

          In the direct appeal from plaintiff’s conviction, the Second District squarely addressed these

          issues, ultimately determining that the trial court properly admitted evidence of plaintiff’s

          name and birthdate. See Gakuba, 2017 IL App (2d) 150744-U, ¶¶ 47-58 (discussion of identity

          evidence). As part of this analysis, the Second District also considered plaintiff’s contentions

          that O’Brien perjured himself and that the prosecutor suborned that perjury. Id. ¶ 57. The

          appellate court also addressed plaintiff’s contention that he was tried before a biased trial judge,

          finding that nothing in the record showed that the judge had any bias or animus towards

          plaintiff. See id. ¶¶ 101-07 (discussing motions to substitute trial judge). These findings were

          repeated in plaintiff’s postconviction appeal, where plaintiff again raised the same issues, and

          the Second District again addressed them. Specifically, the appellate court found that plaintiff’s

          claims as to his name and birthdate were barred by res judicata, as they had been raised on

          direct appeal. Gakuba, 2019 IL App (2d) 170794-U, ¶ 30. The court also found that plaintiff’s

          claims as to the trial judge were similarly barred. Id. ¶ 36. Accordingly, these issues cannot

          serve as a basis for plaintiff’s instant habeas complaint, as plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of

          collateral estoppel from relitigating them yet again.

¶ 37          We note that, to the extent that plaintiff raises a voidness challenge, collateral estoppel is

          generally not applicable to such a challenge. See, e.g., Lady v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 80

          Ill. App. 3d 69, 72 (1980) (collateral estoppel results in only void judgments being subject to

          collateral attack); In re Marriage of Hulstrom, 342 Ill. App. 3d 262, 270 (2003) (void

                                                        15
       No. 1-22-1509

          judgments are subject to collateral attack and are not barred by res judicata). At least some

          courts have held, however, that where the decision that has preclusive effect is an appellate

          court decision—not a circuit court judgment—such a principle is inapplicable. See Stolfo v.

          KinderCare Learning Centers, Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 142396, ¶ 28.

¶ 38         Nevertheless, even if we consider plaintiff’s voidness challenge despite its repetitiveness,

          we cannot find that his claim has any merit. Plaintiff’s claim centers on his contention that his

          indictment was based on information which was improperly obtained in violation of the Video

          Privacy Act. Even if true, this would not have deprived the trial court of its jurisdiction over

          plaintiff’s criminal case. Our supreme court has made clear that jurisdiction is conferred by the

          constitution, not by information or indictment. People v. Benitez, 169 Ill. 2d 245, 256 (1996);

          People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817, ¶ 27. Thus, the only consideration is whether the alleged

          claim falls within the general class of cases which the court has the inherent power to hear and

          determine—if so, the fact that an indictment is defective does not deprive the court of

          jurisdiction. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817, ¶ 28 (indictment which failed to charge the offense to

          which the defendant pled guilty did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction); Benitez, 169 Ill.

          2d at 256 (even though initial indictment failed to name the defendant and a second indictment

          was not valid, the trial court was not deprived of jurisdiction). Here, the indictment charged

          plaintiff with aggravated criminal sexual abuse, which falls within the general class of cases

          which the trial court had the power to hear and determine. See Hughes, 2012 IL 112817, ¶ 28

          (finding jurisdiction present where the indictment alleged aggravated criminal sexual abuse).

          Accordingly, even if the indictment was allegedly defective, the trial court would not have

          been deprived of jurisdiction over the matter and plaintiff’s complaint was therefore properly

          dismissed.

                                                        16
       No. 1-22-1509

¶ 39          As a final matter, we note that plaintiff’s MSR term expires April 27, 2023. This will

          presumably mark the end of plaintiff’s habeas filings. To the extent that it does not, however,

          we caution plaintiff that section 10-103 of the Code provides that an application for habeas

          corpus relief shall be made (1) to the supreme court, (2) to the circuit court of the county in

          which the person is imprisoned or restrained, or (3) to the circuit court of the county from

          which the person was sentenced or committed. 735 ILCS 5/10-103 (West 2020). Cook County

          is none of the above. While we recognize that plaintiff apparently wishes his claims to be

          considered by a court other than the circuit court of Winnebago County, he is nonetheless

          required to comply with the statute, and filing repeated lawsuits in various jurisdictions is not

          an effective method for bypassing the statutory requirements. As a result, defendant has

          requested sanctions in the instant appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 375(b), which

          provides for sanctions in appeals which are frivolous or otherwise not taken in good faith. Ill.

          S. Ct. R. 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). We decline to impose such sanctions at this time. However,

          “[i]t is well settled that courts of this state may take measures to restrain litigants from

          maintaining vexatious litigation.” People v. Austin, 2014 IL App (4th) 140408, ¶ 24 (citing

          People v. Ryburn, 378 Ill. App. 3d 972, 977 (2008)). If plaintiff continues to file challenges to

          his Winnebago County conviction in the circuit court of Cook County, he may be subject to

          sanctions, in that court, in this court, or both.

¶ 40                                            CONCLUSION

¶ 41          For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s complaint for habeas corpus was properly

          dismissed where his claims are barred by collateral estoppel and his voidness challenge lacks

          merit.

¶ 42          Affirmed.

                                                         17