Cebertowicz v. The Illinois Department of Corrections
2016 IL App (4th) 151024
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Kenneth Cebertowicz, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center, filed a FOIA request seeking copies of institutional and DOC administrative directives and the FY2016 Master Menu.
- DOC responded that some requested directives did not exist, produced others, and denied copying requests under FOIA §7(1)(e-5) because the materials were maintained and available in the facility law library.
- Cebertowicz sued pro se in Sangamon County, initially naming the FOIA officer; the complaint was later amended to name DOC and sought copies, training, costs, and other relief.
- DOC moved to dismiss under section 2-615, arguing the requested records fell within FOIA §7(1)(e-5) and were available for inspection in the law library.
- At a telephone hearing Cebertowicz admitted the materials were available for inspection; the trial court granted DOC’s motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding §7(1)(e-5) exempts from copying records that are available in the inmate’s facility library and does not require DOC to provide photocopies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOIA §7(1)(e-5) requires DOC to provide copies to inmates of records maintained in the prison law library | Cebertowicz: FOIA’s use of “shall” in §3(a) mandates that a public body must provide copies on request; the requester chooses inspection vs copying | DOC: §7(1)(e-5) exempts records maintained in the facility library from disclosure by FOIA, so DOC need not furnish photocopies if records are available for inspection in the library | Court: §7(1)(e-5) exempts such records; DOC is not required to provide photocopies when inmate can access the records in the facility library |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC, 988 N.E.2d 984 (Ill. App. Ct.) (explains 2-615 motion tests legal sufficiency of complaint)
- Canel v. Topinka, 818 N.E.2d 311 (Ill. 2004) (plaintiff’s allegations must state a cause of action to survive dismissal)
- Beacham v. Walker, 896 N.E.2d 327 (Ill. 2008) (de novo review of section 2-615 dismissal)
- Advincula v. United Blood Services, 678 N.E.2d 1009 (Ill. 1996) (legislative history may be consulted when statute ambiguous)
- Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board, 634 N.E.2d 712 (Ill. 1994) (attorney general opinions entitled to weight though not controlling)