Battle v. Chi. Police Dep't

2022 IL App (1st) 200083

220 N.E.3d 1151

468 Ill.Dec. 372

Jovan BATTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.The CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-20-0083

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Filed April 14, 2022

Jovan Battle, of Chicago, appellant pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

OPINION

JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion¶ 1 Plaintiff Jovan Battle filed a civil complaint against defendant, the Chicago Police Department (CPD), and numerous other defendants in 2019. In conjunction with his civil complaint, plaintiff filed an application for waiver of court fees, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 298 (eff. July 1, 2019) and section 5-105 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/5-105 (West 2018) ). The circuit court denied plaintiff's application on the basis that his complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and ordered plaintiff to pay all court fees by January 3, 2020. When plaintiff was unable to pay the court fees, the court administratively dismissed his complaint. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his application for waiver of court fees.¹

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On November 18, 2019, plaintiff Jovan Battle filed a civil complaint against CPD and various other defendants² in the circuit Court of cook County. The clerk's office assigned plaintiff's complaint a case number. In his somewhat convoluted complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was falsely arrested, unlawfully restrained, and maliciously prosecuted in connection with events occurring on March 23, 2019. Plaintiff sought $5 million in damages from the named defendants.

¶ 4 Plaintiff enclosed with his complaint both a completed "Application for Waiver of Court Fees" and an "Application and Affidavit to Sue or Defend as an Indigent Person," pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 298 (eff. July 1, 2019) and section 5-105 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/5-105 (West 2018) ). As the application for waiver of court fees is the required form pursuant to Rule 298, this is the application we will examine. In his application, plaintiff alleged that he was an indigent person unable to pay the costs, fees, and various expenses of his civil action. He contended that, due to his imprisonment at the Cook County Department of Corrections (CCDOC), he was unemployed. Plaintiff averred that he otherwise had no income or support and denied owning any bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, or other items of value. He stated he received a one-time payment of $150 from a friend while he was in custody. Attached to his application were statements demonstrating the balance of plaintiff's CCDOC resident funds from May 1, 2019, to May 28, 2019. As of August 29, 2019, plaintiff averred that he had two cents available on his account. Also included with plaintiff's application was a certificate issued by the CCDOC account supervisor, stating that plaintiff had two cents in his trust account.

¶ 5 On December 20, 2019, the circuit court issued an order denying plaintiff's application for waiver of court fees, stating that plaintiff did not qualify for a fee waiver because "applicant fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." The circuit court therefore ordered plaintiff to pay all fees, costs, and charges associated with the filing of his complaint by January 3, 2020.

¶ 6 Subsequently, on January 3, 2020, the circuit court entered an order administratively dismissing plaintiff's case due to his failure to appear and pay all necessary court fees. Plaintiff timely appealed on January 10, 2020. On October 21, 2020, the circuit court granted plaintiff's application for waiver of court fees regarding his appeal before this court. The circuit court found that plaintiff qualified for a full waiver of all filing fees and the cost of obtaining the record on appeal. Specifically, the court found that plaintiff's personal income was 125% or less of the current poverty level as established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, Battle was unable to pay fees, costs, or charges.

¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 8 As a preliminary matter, we note that the defendant-appellee did not file a brief with this court. Further, we note that the appellant's brief is obscure and fails to include even a single citation to authority or the record, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. May 25, 2018). Additionally, the brief fails to contain a proper summary statement, introductory paragraph, or statement of the issue presented for review, as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. May 25, 2018). The brief does not contain the order appealed from nor does it contain an index to the record as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 342 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). These violations are neither trivial nor inconsequential.

¶ 9 The Illinois Supreme Court's rules governing appellate briefs are mandatory. Slater v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel , 2019 IL App (1st) 181007, ¶ 11, 437 Ill.Dec. 506, 144 N.E.3d 618. "A party's failure to comply with the rules runs the risk that this court will strike the offending portions of a noncompliant brief, or in rare cases, dismiss an appeal for serious rule violations." Metzger v. Brotman , 2021 IL App (1st) 201218, ¶ 24, 455 Ill.Dec. 350, 191 N.E.3d 657. However, striking an appellate brief, in whole or in part, is a harsh sanction that "is ordinarily reserved for the most egregious failures to comply with the rules and those that hinder our review." In re Marriage of Reicher , 2021 IL App (2d) 200454, ¶ 30, 458 Ill.Dec. 94, 196 N.E.3d 398 (citing Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC , 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 15), 360 Ill.Dec. 885, 969 N.E.2d 930. Furthermore, "the rules are an admonishment to the parties and not a limitation upon the jurisdiction of this court." Perona v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. , 2014 IL App (1st) 130748, ¶ 21, 388 Ill.Dec. 526, 24 N.E.3d 806.

¶ 10 While this court certainly has the option of dismissing plaintiff's appeal for failure to comply with the supreme court rules, in the interest of ensuring equal access to justice, we will not exercise this option. Despite deficiencies in an appellant's brief, "where ‘the record is short and the issues are simple,’ the appellate court may choose to ‘address the issues anyway.’ " Vance v. Joyner , 2019 IL App (4th) 190136, ¶ 80, 438 Ill.Dec. 531, 146 N.E.3d 285 (quoting People v. Johnson , 192 Ill. 2d 202, 206, 248 Ill.Dec. 926, 735 N.E.2d 577 (2000) ). In the instant case, we find the common law record, along with the plaintiff's meager brief, sufficient to resolve the merits of this appeal without aid of the defendant's brief. See Gwozdz v. Board of Education of Park Ridge-Niles School District No. 64 , 2021 IL App (1st) 200518, ¶ 28, 454 Ill.Dec. 226, 189 N.E.3d 487 (citing In re Estate of Jackson , 354 Ill. App. 3d 616, 620, 290 Ill.Dec. 625, 821 N.E.2d 1199 (2004) ). "[W]hile the insufficiency of the plaintiff's brief in this case hinders review, meaningful review is not precluded." Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. , 321 Ill. App. 3d 509, 511, 254 Ill.Dec. 776, 748 N.E.2d 222 (2001). Thus, notwithstanding the violation of the rules or the absence of an appellee brief, we will address the merits of the appeal, where "we do not find the flaws identified to be so serious as to interfere with our ability to understand and adjudicate this case." State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Burke , 2016 IL App (2d) 150462, ¶ 22, 402 Ill.Dec. 330, 51 N.E.3d 1082 ; see MIFAB, Inc. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n , 2020 IL App (1st) 181098, ¶ 33, 444 Ill.Dec. 677, 164 N.E.3d 1252 (noting that the decision of whether to dismiss an appeal based on Rule 341 violations is within the discretion of the reviewing court).

¶ 11 We turn now to the merits. Plaintiff here appeals the circuit court's denial of his application for waiver of court fees. Although the bulk of the argument in plaintiff's brief simply explains in detail why he is indigent and cannot afford to pay filing fees, plaintiff's notice of appeal—along with the record—allows us to glean his claim of error. In his January 10, 2020, notice of appeal, plaintiff contended that

"[t]he fact that I am indigent, I should of [sic ] been able to proceed as well without fees for case # 2019L012671. I am unable to pay the filing fee of 388.00 to the courts and I have provided proof as well. Wherefore, I ask that the prayer be heard as well and that the Honorable Court of Appeals does grant my motion to appeal the fees and waive the fees."

Further, plaintiff's docketing statement reflects that he is appealing from the December 20, 2019, order denying his application to sue as an indigent person.

¶ 12 Indigent litigants in Illinois are permitted to apply for a waiver of court fees, costs, and charges pursuant to the provisions in section 5-105 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/5-105 (West 2020) ) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 298 (eff. July 1, 2019). To qualify for such a waiver, the litigant must submit a written application that includes "information regarding the applicant's household composition, receipt of need-based public benefits, income, expenses, and nonexempt assets." Ill. S. Ct. R. 298(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2019). The contents of the application must be satisfactorily adequate so the court can determine if the litigant qualifies for a fee waiver, pursuant to section 5-105 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/5-105 (West 2020) ). Ill. S. Ct. R. 298(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2019). Upon receipt of a litigant's completed application, the court may either set a hearing requiring the applicant to produce specific documents or it may rule on the application itself. Ill. S. Ct. R. 298(b) (eff. July 1, 2019).

¶ 13 Upon a finding that the litigant "is an indigent person, the court shall grant the applicant a full fees, costs, and charges waiver." 735 ILCS 5/5-105(b)(1) (West 2020); Ill. S. Ct. R....