ANDRE COLE v. STATE OF ILLINOIS (2013)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, alleging the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over this claim as the statute of limitations expired pursuant to the Court of Claims Act § 22(h). Respondent's Motion to Dismiss also alleges the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over this claim because Respondent is not liable for the actions of a Clerk of the Circuit Court. On December 11, 2012, an oral argument was heard before this Court on the issues presented in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.

Nature of the Claim

On January 9, 2008, Claimant entered the Cook County Department of Corrections awaiting trial on alleged burglary charges. Subsequently, but prior to his trial scheduled for June 13, 2008, Claimant was released to the Illinois Department of Corrections and transferred to Stateville Correctional Center. On August 11, 2008, Claimant pled guilty to the burglary charges in Cook County Court. On June 15, 2009, Claimant filed a Notice of Intent for Claim for Personal Injury in the Circuit Court of Cook County on the actions and alleged negligence of Dorothy Brown, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for allowing Claimant to enter the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections while he was a pretrial detainee. On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and dismissed it with leave to re-file in the appropriate venue. On February 2, 2012, Claimant filed his Complaint in this Court sounding in tort. Specifically, Claimant's claim is against the State for damages sounding in tort through respondent superior of the actions of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County and the clerk's employee. On August 30, 2012, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing the Court of Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim, as Respondent is not liable for the actions of a Clerk of the Circuit Court. Alternatively, Respondent argues this Court lacks jurisdiction over this Claim as the statute of limitations expired prior to Claimant filing his Complaint. Conversely, Claimant argues his notice was properly filed on June 15, 2009 in the Circuit Court of Cook County and thus, his claim in this Court is timely.

Analysis

Pursuant to the Court of Claims Act §22 (h), a tort claim must be filed within 2 years after it first accrues. 705 ILCS 505/22(h). In this case, both parties agree that the alleged error by the Clerk occurred on June 13, 2008. As such, Respondent argues more than two years have passed from the date Claimant's claim accrued and the filing of his February 2, 2012 Complaint in this Court. This Court has consistently held that a Claimant who files in the Circuit Court but fails to file a claim in the Court of Claims within the limitations prescribed fails to meet the statute of limitations jurisdictional requirement. Reyes v. Court of Claims, 299 Ill.App. 3d 1097, 1104 (1st Dist. 1998). This Court agrees with Respondent that Claimant failed to file a claim in the Court of Claims within the timeframe required under the applicable statute of limitations. This Court further notes that §505/22(j) indicates that the statute of limitations as established is jurisdictional: “(j) All time limitations established under this Act and the rules promulgated under this Act shall be binding and jurisdictional, except upon extension authorized by law or rule and granted pursuant to a motion timely filed.” Additionally, general continuances are granted to allow a Claimant to preserve his rights in this Court while also exhausting any and all other remedies in other venues. Rockett v. State of Illinois, 60 Ill.Ct.Cl. 257 (2007).

Claimant also argues the Clerk in the Circuit Court case took the position which indicated the Circuit Court of Cook County was the proper venue, ultimately “lulling us into a belief that they are not going to at a later point in time take a contrary position.” Regardless of the initial position taken by the Clerk in the Circuit Court case, Claimant has not addressed the seminal issue of the admitted noncompliance with the Act to present a claim in this Court, a court of statutorily limited jurisdiction. At the December 11, 2012 oral argument, Claimant's counsel admitted there was nothing specifically prohibiting him from filing in the Court of Claims while also pursuing their claim in the Circuit Court. Claimant fails to attempt to address the realities of our jurisdictional limitations and the precedent affirming the creation of this Court for the sole purpose of allowing Claimants to proceed only upon meeting the specific requisites prescribed by the Illinois General Assembly as set forth in the Court of Claims Act and Rules.

Because this Court has concluded it lacks jurisdiction over this claim, we need not take up the alternative grounds advanced in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

BIRNBAUM, J.