MYLES LREED, SR., Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant filed a complaint based on an appellate court opinion that purportedly remanded a retaliatory discharge case to the Court of Claims. The Court dismissed the claim because it was filed over 12 years after the cause of action accrued, exceeding the two-year jurisdictional limit under Section 505/22.
Statutes cited: 705 ILCS 505/22; 705 ILCS 505/22(j)
Cases cited: 705 App 3d, 702 N E 2d 224 (1998); Myles Reed, Sr. v Illinois Civil Service Commission and Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, 99 L 6593
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Procedure and Practice - Remanded case from Appellate Court is not allowed - The Court of Claims does not fall within the judicial branch of government. Therefore, jurisdiction can only come from the legislative grant under 705 ILCS 505/8. Also, a case can not be remanded to a forum it was never in.
ORDER
SPRAGUE, J. This matter coming before the Court to be heard on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court being fully advised in the premises, The Court Finds:
1. On or about December 26, 2006, Claimant filed his complaint in this matter. He attached to his Complaint a September 4, 2002, Opinion from the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, No. 1-01-2754, that purports to “remand” an appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County in Myles Reed, Sr. v Illinois Civil Service Commission and Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, 99 L 6593, to the Illinois Court of Claims.
2. The First District Court of Appeals cannot remand this case to the Court of Claims for several reasons. First, a case cannot be “remanded” to a forum it was never in. At the time of the Appellate Court’s Opinion, no claim had been filed before this Court. Second, there is no jurisdictional basis for such an action, as the Court of Claims does not fall within the judicial branch of government, but rather the legislative branch. Therefore, jurisdiction can only come from the legislative grant under 705 [*505] App 3d, 702 N E 2d 224 (1998).
3. It appears that Claimant’s complaint is based upon the common law tort of retaliatory discharge, although Claimant’s Complaint contains no allegations in support thereof Claimant apparently relies solely on the Appellate Opinion attached to his Complaint.
However, the Appellate Court found in reviewing Claimant’s complaint filed before the Circuit Court that “plaintiff has failed to allege a cause of action which would be recognized under current Illinois common law” (Order, page 7-8). Therefore, it is res judicata that Claimant cannot state a common law claim retaliatory discharge.
4. Claimant does allege that he was terminated on March 1, 1994, over 12 years prior to first filing in the Court of Claims, (Complaint, ¶ 2).
5. Even the “remand” occurred on September 4, 2002, approximately five (5) years and three (3) months prior to filing in the Court of Claims.
6. Under Section 505/22, Claimant was required to file his suit within two years of the action first accruing.
7. Section 505/22(j) provides that “all time limitations established under this Act and the rules promulgated under this Act shall be binding and jurisdictional” 705ILCS 505/22(j).
8. Therefore, Claimant’s claim must be dismissed because Claimant failed to file within the two years of his action first accruing.
Based upon the foregoing, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted and the case dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.