Court Opinion

ID: 9892466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 22:05:33.807762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:05.950855
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                2023 IL App (4th) 230104-U
 This Order was filed under
                                                                                     FILED
 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                    October 23, 2023
                                          NO. 4-23-0104
 not precedent except in the                                                       Carla Bender
 limited circumstances allowed                                                 4th District Appellate
 under Rule 23(e)(1).            IN THE APPELLATE COURT                              Court, IL

                                          OF ILLINOIS

                                       FOURTH DISTRICT

THOMAS POWERS,                                                )     Appeal from the
          Plaintiff-Appellant,                                )     Circuit Court of
          v.                                                  )     Schuyler County
KIMBERLY WEITL,                                               )     No. 19L8
          Defendant-Appellee.                                 )
                                                              )     Honorable
                                                              )     Mark Vincent,
                                                              )     Judge Presiding.

                JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
                Justices Turner and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1     Held: The appellate court dismissed plaintiff’s appeal where his notice of appeal did not
             vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to consider the arguments raised in his
             brief.

¶2              Plaintiff, Thomas Powers, a resident of the Illinois Department of Human

Services Treatment and Detention Facility in Rushville (Rushville), filed a complaint against

defendants, Kimberly Weitl and John Arroyo, relating to their psychological evaluations of

plaintiff. The trial court granted Arroyo’s motion to dismiss and, in the same order, sua sponte

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as to Weitl. Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider.

When plaintiff did not appear for the scheduled hearing, the court dismissed the case for want of

prosecution. Plaintiff appeals, requesting the reinstatement of his case for further proceedings.

For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND
¶4             Plaintiff has been a resident of Rushville since June 2012 pending proceedings

under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 2012)).

During this time, plaintiff has filed numerous complaints in federal and state court. In December

2019, plaintiff filed a complaint against Weitl and Arroyo, two psychologists hired by the

attorney general to conduct psychological evaluations of plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged

medical malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and “departure of

professional judgment.” Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, suffering “great emotional distress due to

erroneously being labeled with a fake diagnosis with no apparent treatment” and being “deprived

of the comforts, companionship and affection attendant to living as a free man with his family.”

¶5             In January 2021, Arroyo filed a combined motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint

(735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2020)). In March 2022, the trial court granted the motion and, in the

same order, sua sponte dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as to Weitl. In April 2022,

plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, taking issue with the propriety of the court’s sua sponte

dismissal of his complaint as to a nonmoving defendant. In May and June 2022, plaintiff

requested a hearing on this motion, first by a letter to the clerk of the circuit court of Schuyler

County and second by a formal motion. On July 18, 2022, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Default,”

asserting Weitl had not yet responded to his motion to reconsider and, therefore, had “defaulted.”

The following day, the court scheduled a hearing on “all pending motions” for August 9, 2022.

On August 9, 2022, the court scheduled a hearing on “plaintiff’s pending motion” (singular,

though not specifying which) for September 13, 2022. On August 12, 2022, plaintiff filed both

another “Motion for Default” and a “Motion to Appoint Counsel.” Our review of the record does

not uncover any hearing that may have occurred, or order entered, on September 13, 2022. On

September 27, 2022, the court scheduled a hearing on “all pending motions” (plural) for

                                                 -2-
November 15, 2022. Plaintiff did not appear for the November 15, 2022, hearing, and the court

dismissed the case for want of prosecution. This is reflected in an order “entered” on November

29, 2022, nunc pro tunc to November 15, 2022, and stamped December 2, 2022. Plaintiff filed a

“Motion to Reinstate Matter” on December 22, 2022, which he asserts in his notice of appeal the

court denied on January 24, 2023, though no such order appears in the record on appeal. Indeed,

our review of the record suggests no such order was ever entered in this case.

¶6             This appeal followed.

¶7                                        II. ANALYSIS

¶8             On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred when it “refused to writ” him to

court for the hearing where his case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Plaintiff requests the

reinstatement of his case for further proceedings. (We note no appellee brief was filed in this

appeal). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to plaintiff’s defective notice of

appeal.

¶9                                A. Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal

¶ 10           Before addressing plaintiff’s arguments, we must consider whether we have

jurisdiction over the instant appeal, as “[a] reviewing court has an independent duty to consider

issues of jurisdiction, regardless of whether either party has raised them.” People v. Smith, 228

Ill. 2d 95, 104, 885 N.E.2d 1053, 1058 (2008). Plaintiff’s notice of appeal requires us to

undertake this threshold inquiry. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(b)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017)

requires a notice of appeal to “specify the judgment or part thereof or other orders appealed from

and the relief sought from the reviewing court.” “[A] notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on a

court of review to consider only the judgments or parts thereof specified in the notice of appeal.”

Smith, 228 Ill. 2d at 104. “Where the deficiency in notice is one of form, rather than substance,

                                                -3-
and the appellee is not prejudiced, the failure to comply strictly with the form of the notice is not

fatal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Smith, 228 Ill. 2d at 105. Here, plaintiff’s notice of

appeal only specifies the purported January 24, 2023, denial of his “Motion to Reinstate” and not

the failure to be writ for the hearing on November 15, 2022, at which the trial court dismissed the

underlying case for want of prosecution. Having not mentioned the failure to be writ for the

November 15, 2022, hearing at all, plaintiff’s notice of appeal reflects a substantive defect fatal

to the jurisdiction of this court to consider that issue. As plaintiff confines his brief solely to that

issue, we cannot consider his arguments. See, e.g., People v. Niffen, 2018 IL App (4th) 150881,

¶ 29, 115 N.E.3d 1140 (citing Smith in holding, “[b]ecause the violent crimes victims assessment

and the retention of defendant’s bond money are extraneous to the summary dismissal order,

which defendant specified in his notice of appeal, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction to consider

those issues”). Moreover, this purported January 24, 2023, order is not even in the record on

appeal, and “[a] notice of appeal’s reference to a judgment not otherwise shown of record [is]

insufficient to avoid dismissal of the appeal.” Heavey v. Ehret, 166 Ill. App. 3d 347, 350, 519

N.E.2d 996, 998 (1988).

¶ 11            B. Compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020)

¶ 12            Even assuming, arguendo, this court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s

arguments, we would still strike his brief and dismiss the appeal for his failure to comply with

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). See Minor v. Department of Employment

Security, 2022 IL App (1st) 220262-U, ¶¶ 9-11, 14-16 (assessing the jurisdictional deficiency of

the notice of appeal and the deficiency of the brief under Rule 341(h)(7) as separate bases for

dismissing the appeal); see also Harris v. Department of Employment Security, 2022 IL App

(1st) 220405-U, ¶¶ 14-17, 20-22 (same). “Rule 341 represents our supreme court’s considered

                                                  -4-
opinion of the format that best facilitates the clear and orderly presentation of arguments.” Hall

v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 15, 969 N.E.2d 930. “[T]he

procedural rules governing the content and form of appellate briefs are mandatory and not

suggestions. [Citation.] Further, self-represented litigants are not excused from following these

rules.” Litwin v. County of La Salle, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 3, 193 N.E.3d 361.

¶ 13           First, Rule 341(h)(3) requires an appellant’s brief to contain “a concise statement

of the applicable standard of review for each issue, with citation to authority, either in the

discussion of the issue in the argument or under a separate heading placed before the discussion

in the argument.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(3) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). While plaintiff entitles one section of

his brief “Standard of Review,” he does not specify what the standard of review would be in this

case. Plaintiff also does not do so in the “Argument” section of his brief.

¶ 14           Second, Rule 341(h)(4)(ii) requires an appellant’s brief to contain:

               “a brief, but precise statement or explanation under the heading

               ‘Jurisdiction’ of the basis for appeal including the supreme court rule or

               other law which confers jurisdiction upon the reviewing court; the facts of

               the case which bring it within this rule or other law; and the date that the

               order being appealed was entered and any other facts which are necessary

               to demonstrate that the appeal is timely.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(4)(ii) (eff.

               Oct. 1, 2020).

               Here, while plaintiff’s brief contains a section entitled “Jurisdictional Statement,”

it consists only of the following: “This appeal from Schuyler County was filed on February 6,

2023 after appellant filed a notice of appeal timely on the circuit court decision to dismiss the

complaint.” Plaintiff does not specify anything which would confer this court with jurisdiction

                                                 -5-
over his appeal. He does not specify in his brief the date of the order being appealed. Plaintiff

also does not present any other facts demonstrating the timeliness of his appeal. Accordingly,

plaintiff does not satisfy any of the requirements of Rule 341(h)(4)(ii).

¶ 15            The most significant deficiencies in plaintiff’s brief pertain to Rule 341(h)(7),

which requires his brief contain an “Argument” section comprised of “the contentions of the

appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record

relied on.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). While plaintiff’s brief includes a section

entitled “Argument,” that section does not cite any authority in support of having his case

reinstated for not having been writ to appear in court. Indeed, the only case plaintiff cites is one

of his own (“Powers v. Scott et al., 19-LM-23”) and he cites it solely to explain how he learned,

during a December 13, 2022, hearing in that case, that the instant case was dismissed for want of

prosecution on an earlier date.

¶ 16            “Failure to comply with the rules regarding appellate briefs is not an

inconsequential matter. [Citation.] The purpose of the rules is to require parties before a

reviewing court to present clear and orderly arguments so that the court can properly ascertain

and dispose of the issues involved.” Hall, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 7. “When an appellant’s

brief fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 341, this court has the discretion to strike the

brief and dismiss the appeal,” since “[w]e will not search the record for the purpose of finding

error where an appellant has made no good-faith effort to comply with the supreme court rules

governing the contents of briefs.” Litwin, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 11. Indeed, “where the

brief contains no standards of review, and where, most important, plaintiff’s arguments are

conclusory and not supported by any authority, we have no choice but to strike the brief and

dismiss the appeal.” Hall, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 15.

                                                 -6-
¶ 17                           III. CONCLUSION

¶ 18   For the reasons stated, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 19   Appeal dismissed.

                                       -7-