BOBBY BYRD v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (1997)

Court of Claims of Illinois.

BOBBY L. BYRD, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

(No. 97-CC-3039 Respondent's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment denied.)

Decided: December 03, 1997

BOBBY L. BYRD, pro se. JIM RYAN, Attorney General (CHRISTOPHER L. HIGGERSON, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

OPINION

This claim arises on the Respondent's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment.

The Claimant is an inmate who seeks damages due to personal injury.

The Respondent's motion states that the Claimant did not exhaust his remedies, as required by section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/25), as he filed no grievance with the prison authorities or the Department of Corrections. See McCormick v. State (1992), 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 326.

The Claimant argues that to grieve his claim would be useless, as the Department of Corrections does not grant awards from its tort claims funds for pain and suffering or permanent injury.

We agree. The exhaustion of remedies provision of the Court of Claims Act does not require a claimant to pursue an alleged remedy that does not exist under any set of facts. Tunk v. State (1987), 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1.

To the extent that McCormick, supra, is inconsistent with our ruling in this claim, it is overruled.

It is therefore ordered that the Respondent's motion is denied.

SOMMER, C.J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network