Cebertowicz v. Baldwin, 2017 IL App (4th) 160535

Background

Kenneth Cebertowicz, an IDOC inmate, filed for mandamus after Lawrence Correctional Center doubled photocopy fees (from $0.05 to $0.10 one-sided; $0.20 two-sided) following a Department-wide memorandum.
Cebertowicz argued the Department violated its rule 20 Ill. Adm. Code 430.40(a), which requires each facility to determine reproduction costs based on actual cost per copy.
He filed a grievance directly with the Administrative Review Board; the board returned it as "No further redress," finding it untimely or otherwise not subject to further review.
Defendants (IDOC Director Baldwin and CFO Brunk) moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, lack of authority by the director, irrelevance of 730 ILCS 5/3-4-3, compliance with the rule, and sovereign-immunity barriers.
Brunk submitted an affidavit averring the actual cost per copy across facilities was $0.10 (single) and $0.20 (double); Cebertowicz submitted unsworn FOIA materials and affidavits that the court found insufficient to create a factual dispute.
The trial court granted defendants' summary‑judgment motion on standing grounds; the appellate court affirmed but on the alternative ground that Cebertowicz suffered no prejudice because Brunk’s uncontradicted affidavit established the fee equaled actual cost.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to seek mandamus enforcing a rule	Cebertowicz has an interest because he is charged for photocopies and can seek enforcement of agency rules	IDOC argued inmates lack a private right to enforce these statutory/regulatory provisions	Court rejected defendants' narrow standing test and held Cebertowicz had sufficient interest to bring mandamus (but affirmed on other grounds)
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Grievance to the Administrative Review Board constituted final administrative action; exhaustion occurred	IDOC argued he bypassed institutional counselor/grievance officer and thus failed to exhaust	Court held the board’s "No further redress" return showed final administrative decision; exhaustion occurred
Whether IDOC violated 20 Ill. Adm. Code 430.40(a) by imposing uniform rate	Facility must set cost based on actual cost per copy; uniform Dept. rate violates the rule	IDOC argued Brunk had determined the uniform rates reflected actual cost and thus complied	Court found no material factual dispute because Brunk’s uncontradicted affidavit established the actual cost equaled the charged rate, so no prejudice from any procedural violation
Sovereign immunity as a bar to mandamus	Mandamus seeks to compel officers, not sue the State; immune statute inapplicable	IDOC claimed Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction for claims based on state regulations	Court held mandamus to compel a public officer is not a suit against the State and sovereign immunity did not bar the action

Key Cases Cited

Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211 (Ill. 1999) (reiterates traditional standing test — injury in fact and traceability — and rejects Lynch zone-of-interests test)
Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462 (Ill. 1988) (standing requires injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest)
Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (Ill. 1986) (affidavit facts supporting summary judgment not contradicted by counteraffidavit are admitted)
Turner-El v. West, 349 Ill. App. 3d 475 (Ill. App. 2004) (mandamus may compel agency to follow its own rules; no absolute right to photocopies absent access-to-courts impairment)
Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller, 104 Ill. 2d 169 (Ill. 1984) (mandamus to compel public official is not a suit against the State)
Heidelberger v. Jewel Cos., Inc., 57 Ill. 2d 87 (Ill. 1974) (summary-judgment affidavit facts uncontradicted by counteraffidavit are taken as true)
Beer Barn, Inc. v. Dillard, 227 Ill. App. 3d 68 (Ill. App. 1992) (mandamus relief requires showing injustice from the rule violation)