BOBBY L. BYRD, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, sought damages for personal injury. The court denied respondent's motion to dismiss, holding that exhaustion of remedies was not required because the Department of Corrections does not award damages for pain and suffering or permanent injury from its tort claims fund.
Statutes cited: 705 ILCS 505/25
Cases cited: McCormick v. State (1992), 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 326; Tunk v. State (1987), 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES-Claimant was not required to pursue nonexistent remedy-State’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment denied. An inmate who sought personal injury damages was not required to file a grievance with prison authorities or the Department of Corrections because the Department does not grant awards from its tort claim fund for pain and suffering or permanent injury, and 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, and therefore, the State's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment based on the inmate’s failure to exhaust his remedies was denied.
OPINION
SOMMER, C.J.
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.
[*224] 224 53 Ill. Ct. Cl.
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.