Bocock v. McGuire
2017 IL App (3d) 150860
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles Bocock filed FOIA suits against Will County officials and then sued Pamela McGuire in her official capacity as Twelfth Judicial Circuit Clerk, alleging the clerk set an initial return/hearing date that was not the "earliest practicable date" as required by FOIA §11(h).
- Bocock sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, claiming a violation of FOIA §11(h) and denial of due process under the Illinois Constitution.
- The clerk moved to dismiss under section 2-619, arguing §11(h) is directory (no penalty), the clerk and judiciary are excluded from FOIA’s definition of "public body," monetary relief is barred, and Bocock could have moved to advance the date.
- The trial court dismissed Bocock’s complaint with prejudice; Bocock appealed.
- The appellate court judicially noticed docket sheets from Bocock’s FOIA cases showing substantial delay in service after the June 12, 2015 return date, undermining his claim that the cases were not assigned at the earliest practicable date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOIA §11(h)’s directive that FOIA proceedings be assigned for hearing "at the earliest practicable date" is mandatory | §11(h) uses "shall," so it is mandatory and enforceable against the clerk | §11(h) is directory, lacks penalty, and separation-of-powers concerns make it a non-mandatory direction to courts | Court affirmed dismissal: Bocock failed to plead facts showing §11(h) was violated; moreover the judiciary/clerks are excluded from FOIA as a "public body." |
| Whether the clerk is liable for statutory FOIA damages under §11(j) | Damages available for failure to comply with §11(h) | §11(j) applies to public bodies that improperly withhold records; the clerk’s office was not the public body that received the FOIA requests (Sheriff’s Dept did) and judiciary is excluded from FOIA | Held: §11(j) damages do not apply to the circuit clerk in these circumstances. |
| Whether Bocock’s due process rights were violated by the scheduling | Scheduling denied meaningful access to courts and thus procedural due process | No actual injury was alleged; docket and service timeline show no deprivation of access | Held: Bocock failed to allege specific, actual injury (no missed dates or loss), so due process claim fails. |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper | Implicitly argued dismissal was erroneous | Trial court found no viable claim; appellate review whether any facts could support relief | Held: Dismissal with prejudice affirmed — plaintiff could prove no set of facts entitling him to relief against the clerk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515 (statute-of-pleading and section 2-615 standards explained)
- Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396 (FOIA’s purpose to open governmental records)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (access-to-courts requires showing of actual injury)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Administrative Office of the Courts, 271 Ill. App. 3d 548 (judicial branch excluded from FOIA)
- Newman, Raiz & Shelmadine, LLC v. Brown, 394 Ill. App. 3d 602 (circuit clerk is component of judicial branch and excluded from FOIA)