{
  "id": 25332,
  "name": "MICHAEL RATLIFF-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENNETH R. BRILEY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ratliff-El v. Briley",
  "decision_date": "2003-05-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-01-0727",
  "first_page": "1070",
  "last_page": "1074",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "338 Ill. App. 3d 1070"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "551 N.E.2d 731",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 3d 855",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8499376
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/194/0855-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "772 N.E.2d 980",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 Ill. App. 3d 1112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1209150
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/331/1112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "775 N.E.2d 224",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 Ill. App. 3d 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        487211
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/333/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "778 N.E.2d 1153",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 Ill. App. 3d 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        521930
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/334/0563-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "781 N.E.2d 1105",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 Ill. App. 3d 875",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        637031
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/335/0875-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 365,
    "char_count": 7366,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29543324726653947
    },
    "sha256": "56aacda0886a844bf82d266801c5f25e0f6ef4c3ba676dcd87ceb3bd567db04e",
    "simhash": "1:3b66750781f43122",
    "word_count": 1197
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:28:15.941926+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MICHAEL RATLIFF-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENNETH R. BRILEY, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nMichael Ratliff-El filed a complaint for mandamus relief (735 ILCS 5/14 \u2014 101 et seq. (West 2000)) naming Kenneth R. Briley, warden of the Stateville Correctional Center, as the defendant. The trial court granted the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss under section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615 (West 2000)). On appeal, Ratliff-El argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint because it stated a cause of action for mandamus relief. We affirm.\nBACKGROUND\nRatliff-El is a prisoner at Stateville. In his complaint, Ratliff-El contended that the defendant had a clear duty to follow the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (Act) (5 ILCS 100/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2000)) during adjustment committee and grievance proceedings at Stateville. As a result of such proceedings, Ratliff-El had been disciplined with revocation of good-time credits. Ratliff-El submitted that he was entitled to mandamus relief because the defendant had failed to follow Act procedures. He also alleged that the defendant\u2019s failure to follow Act procedures violated his \u201crights.\u201d\nThe defendant filed a section 2 \u2014 615 motion to dismiss Ratliff-El\u2019s mandamus complaint for failure to state a cause of action. In his motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the Act does not apply to adjustment committee and grievance proceedings conducted by the Department of Corrections (DOC). The trial court granted the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss and Ratliff-El appealed.\nANALYSIS\nMotion to Dismiss Mandamus Action\nA. DOC Duty to Follow Act Procedures\nRatliff-El argues that a state agency must follow Act procedures in \u201ccontested cases.\u201d He reasons that because the DOC is a state agency, and adjustment committee and grievance proceedings meet the statutory definition of \u201ccontested cases,\u201d the defendant has a clear duty to follow Act procedures in DOC adjustment committee and grievance proceedings. He contends that the trial court erred in granting the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss his mandamus cause of action.\nThe defendant asserts that the Act contains a \u201cgrandfathering\u201d clause (5 ILCS 100/1 \u2014 5(a) (West 2000)) which exempts a state agency from using Act procedures when the agency had adjudicatory hearing rules in place on July 1, 1977. The defendant contends that the DOC had such adjudicatory hearing rules in place prior to July 1, 1977. The defendant submits that because the Act does not apply to DOC adjustment committee and grievance proceedings, the defendant has no duty to follow Act procedures. The defendant concludes, therefore, that Ratliff-El did not state a cause of action for mandamus relief. We agree with the defendant.\nA section 2 \u2014 615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint and presents the issue of whether the complaint states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615 (West 2000); Weiss v. Waterhouse Securities, Inc., 335 Ill. App. 3d 875, 781 N.E.2d 1105 (2002). The standard of review for granting a section 2 \u2014 615 motion to dismiss is de novo. Krilich v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 334 Ill. App. 3d 563, 778 N.E.2d 1153 (2002).\nA writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may be used only to compel a public official to perform a nondiscretionary ministerial duty. Caruth v. Quinley, 333 Ill. App. 3d 94, 775 N.E.2d 224 (2002). A complaint seeking a writ of mandamus must allege facts that establish (1) a clear right to the relief requested; (2) a clear duty of the defendant to act; and (3) the clear authority of the defendant to comply with the writ. Southern & Central Illinois Laborers\u2019 District Council v. Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, 331 Ill. App. 3d 1112, 772 N.E.2d 980 (2002).\nSection 1 \u2014 5(a) of the Act states as follows:\n\u201c[The Act] applies to every agency as defined in [this act]. Beginning January 1, 1978, in case of conflict between the provisions of [the Act] and the Act creating or conferring power on an agency, [this act] shall control. If, however, an agency *** has existing procedures on July 1, 1977, specifically for contested cases ***, those existing provisions control, except that this exception respecting contested cases *** does not apply if the Act creating or conferring power on the agency adopts by express reference the provisions of [this act]. Where the Act creating or conferring power on an agency establishes administrative procedures not covered by [this act], those procedures shall remain in effect.\u201d 5 ILCS 100/1\u2014 5(a) (West 2000).\nIt is uncontested that (1) the DOC is an \u201cagency,\u201d and (2) adjustment committee and grievance proceedings are \u201ccontested cases,\u201d as defined by the Act. See 5 ILCS 100/1 \u2014 20, 1 \u2014 30 (West 2000). The DOC had procedures in place on July 1, 1977, specifically for \u201ccontested cases.\u201d See, e.g., Adm. Reg., Department of Corrections \u00a7 804, at 2 (eff. June 18, 1976) (concerning adjustment committee hearing procedures). These DOC procedures continue to be in place under the Illinois Administrative Code. See 20 111. Adm. Code \u00a7 504.80 (2003).\nThe Unified Code of Corrections (Code) (730 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 1\u20141 et seq. (West 2000)) is the Act that confers power on the DOC. 730 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 2\u20142 (West 2000). The Code has not adopted the provisions of the Act by express reference. Furthermore, the Code established administrative procedures for the DOC, not covered by the Act, before July 1, 1977. See, e.g., Pub. Act 77 \u2014 2097, eff. January 1, 1973 (creating, inter alia, disciplinary and grievance procedures). These procedures now are under sections 3 \u2014 8\u20147 and 3 \u2014 8\u20148 of the Code. 730 ILCS 5/3\u2014 8 \u2014 7, 3 \u2014 8\u20148 (West 2000).\nUnder section 1 \u2014 5(a) of the Act, DOC adjustment committee and grievance procedures are not controlled by the Act. Because the defendant did not have a duty to follow Act procedures, Ratliff-El\u2019s complaint did not state a cause of action for mandamus relief.\nB. Due Process\nRatliff-El contends that he is entitled to mandamus relief because the defendant violated his due process rights by failing to follow Act procedures.\nMandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel the DOC to conduct disciplinary hearings consistent with due process. Thompson v. Lane, 194 Ill. App. 3d 855, 551 N.E.2d 731 (1990).\nIn this case, we determined that the DOC does not have a duty to conduct disciplinary hearings under Act procedures. The defendant did not violate the plaintiffs due process rights by failing to follow Act procedures.\nRatliff-El was not entitled to mandamus relief based on either (1) the defendant\u2019s failure to follow Act procedures or (2) a violation of his due process rights. Therefore, the trial court did not err as a matter of law by granting the defendant\u2019s section 2 \u2014 615 motion to dismiss.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Will County circuit court granting the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss Ratliff-El\u2019s mandamus action.\nAffirmed.\nSCHMIDT and LYTTON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael Ratliff-El, of Pontiac, appellant pro se.",
      "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Richard S. Huszagh, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MICHAEL RATLIFF-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENNETH R. BRILEY, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201401\u20140727\nOpinion filed May 2, 2003.\nMichael Ratliff-El, of Pontiac, appellant pro se.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Richard S. Huszagh, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1070-01",
  "first_page_order": 1088,
  "last_page_order": 1092
}