2021 IL App (3d) 200410
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff Eric Litwin was previously convicted of unlawful cannabis trafficking; this court reversed his conviction and the State dismissed charges.
- Litwin sued La Salle County, the Villages of Utica and North Utica, and various officials, filing multiple amended complaints; the circuit court dismissed his fourth amended complaint with prejudice.
- On appeal Litwin proceeded pro se; the appellate court reviewed his appellate brief for compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 and related rules.
- The appellate court identified multiple, substantive Rule 341 deficiencies: incorrect/irrelevant standard of review, improper jurisdictional statement, failure to include statutory text, inadequate statement of facts with no record citations, undeveloped arguments, and a defective appendix.
- Litwin also asserted judicial bias for the first time on appeal; the court noted that arguments not raised below are generally forfeited and that he cited no authority supporting bias.
- The court concluded the cumulative briefing failures hindered appellate review, exercised its discretion to strike Litwin’s brief, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Rule 341 overall | Litwin advanced multiple grievances about the investigation, detention, and prosecution but filed a nonconforming brief | Appellees contended the brief failed to meet Rule 341 and hindered review | Court struck the brief and dismissed the appeal for noncompliance that prevented meaningful review |
| Standard of review requirement | Litwin gave an irrelevant standard (res judicata) | Appellees argued failure to state proper standard violated Rule 341(h)(3) | Court criticized the incorrect standard as part of the Rule 341 deficiencies |
| Statement of facts and record citations | Litwin provided a few sentences and no record page cites | Appellees argued absence of a proper statement of facts impeded understanding of alleged errors | Court found the statement of facts inadequate under Rule 341(h)(6) and that omission hindered review |
| New bias claim raised on appeal | Litwin alleged judicial bias and procedural misconduct at the courthouse | Appellees argued the bias claim was raised for the first time on appeal and unsupported by authority | Court held the bias allegation was forfeited and noted lack of citation to legal authority; did not consider it on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352 (2010) (an issue merely listed or vaguely alleged is not "argued" for purposes of appellate briefing requirements)