Cebertowicz v. Baldwin
2017 IL App (4th) 160535
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Kenneth Cebertowicz, an IDOC inmate, challenged a Department-wide increase in law-library photocopy fees from $0.05 to $0.10 (one-sided) and $0.20 (two-sided) implemented by headquarters.
- Cebertowicz filed a grievance directly with the Administrative Review Board alleging the uniform fee violated 20 Ill. Adm. Code §430.40(a) (facility must set cost based on actual cost) and sought mandamus to compel compliance.
- The Administrative Review Board returned the grievance as "No further redress," and Cebertowicz then sued the Department director and CFO for mandamus; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Defendants argued lack of standing, failure to exhaust (bypassing lower grievance steps), lack of director authority, irrelevance of 730 ILCS 5/3-4-3, compliance with §430.40, and sovereign immunity.
- The trial court granted defendants summary judgment solely on standing; the appellate court reviewed de novo and addressed standing, exhaustion, merits, sovereign-immunity, and factual dispute over actual cost per copy.
- The CFO submitted an affidavit stating the actual cost per copy across facilities was $0.10/$0.20; Cebertowicz submitted unsworn FOIA materials and affidavits not sufficient to create a material factual dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under statute/regulation | Cebertowicz has an interest because he is charged copies and may seek mandamus to enforce departmental rules | Dept. argued inmates lack a private right to enforce these statutes/rules (citing Jackson/Ashley) | Court rejected Jackson’s narrower test, applied traditional standing (injury in fact) and found plaintiff had standing |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Grievance was final because ARB returned it as "No further redress" | Defendants argued Cebertowicz bypassed counselor/grievance officer and failed to exhaust | Court held ARB’s return constituted final administrative decision; exhaustion satisfied |
| Whether §430.40(a) was violated and mandamus appropriate | §430.40(a) requires facility-based charge based on actual cost; uniform fee violated that duty so mandamus may issue if injustice exists | Dept. argued HQ determined actual cost was $0.10/$0.20, so rule was followed; also sovereign immunity inapplicable to mandamus | Court agreed mandamus can compel ministerial duties, but found no prejudice because uncontradicted affidavit showed actual cost equaled charged rate; mandamus denied |
| Existence of genuine factual dispute over actual cost per copy | Cebertowicz relied on FOIA documents and lay affidavits to show lower actual cost | Defendants relied on CFO affidavit stating actual cost was $0.10/$0.20; plaintiff’s materials were unsworn or inadmissible hearsay | Court treated defendants’ affidavit as uncontroverted under Purtill and Heidelberger, found no genuine dispute, and affirmed summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211 (Ill. 1999) (explains standing test: injury in fact elements and rejects Lynch zone-of-interests add-on)
- Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (Ill. 1986) (affidavit facts in support of summary judgment not contradicted by counteraffidavit are taken as true)
- Turner-El v. West, 349 Ill. App. 3d 475 (Ill. App. 2004) (mandamus is proper to compel department to follow its rules; no absolute right to photocopies)
- Senn Park Nursing Ctr. v. Miller, 104 Ill. 2d 169 (Ill. 1984) (mandamus against public official to perform clear, mandatory duty is not a suit against the State)
- Beer Barn, Inc. v. Dillard, 227 Ill. App. 3d 68 (Ill. App. 1991) (mandamus relief requires showing of injustice to petitioner)
- Hill v. Butler, 107 Ill. App. 3d 721 (Ill. App. 1982) (similar principle on relief and prejudice in mandamus context)