Holtz v. Waggoner ( 2007 )

NO. 5-06-0239
NOTICE
Decision filed 11/21/07. The text of
IN THE
this decision may be changed or
corrected prior to the filing of a
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
Peti tion for Rehearing or th e
disposition of the same.
FIFTH DISTRICT
___________________________________________________________________________
RONALD HOLTZ, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Clinton County.
)
v. ) No. 04-MR-114
)
STEPHANIE WAGGONER, Records )
Office Supervisor, Centralia Correctional )
Center, and ROBYN HEADLEY, Medical )
Records Supervisor, Centralia Correctional )
Center, ) Honorable
) William J. Becker,
Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, presiding.
___________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff, Ronald Holtz, filed a complaint for mandamus in the circuit court of Clinton
County. The court dismissed the complaint on the motion of defendants, Stephanie
Waggoner, records office supervisor at Centralia Correctional Center, and Robyn Headley,
medical records supervisor at Centralia Correctional Center. The court later entered an order
awarding plaintiff costs for filing the complaint. On appeal, defendants argue that the award
of costs was not authorized by statute. W e reverse.
FACTS
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Centralia Correctional Center. Plaintiff requested his
medical records from defendants, and the photocopies he received in response had portions
of two pages deleted. Plaintiff then filed a complaint for mandamus against defendants for
a failure to provide the complete records. Plaintiff alleged that the failure to provide
complete records would hinder his pursuit of an unrelated legal matter. Plaintiff asked the
1
court to order defendants to provide a complete copy of the records and reimburse him for
expenses incurred due to the litigation.
Plaintiff stated that he had requested the medical records from defendants pursuant
to the Illinois Administrative Code (20 Ill. Adm. Code §107.310 (eff. May 5, 1996)).
Plaintiff claimed that his administrative grievance "was denied on the institutional level" and
then by the administrative review board.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for the failure to state a claim (735
ILCS 5/2-615 (W est 2004)). Defendants argued that the complaint for mandamus failed to
allege that defendants were responsible for the redactions or otherwise set forth a duty on the
part of defendants to provide the records. The court granted the motion but allowed plaintiff
to file an amended complaint. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants filed
a motion to dismiss stating that the redacted portions of the records had been recently
provided to defendant. See 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2004). The court granted the
motion and dismissed the complaint for mandamus relief as moot.
Plaintiff then filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings and for costs. Plaintiff
admitted that complete copies of the records had been provided, but he contended there was
"nothing to prevent defendants from repeating their behavior in the future." Plaintiff asked
for an award of $120 to reimburse him for the filing fee. In a docket order the court found:
"Before the court is [plaintiff's] motion for judgment on the pleadings [and]
costs 5-3-05, [defendants'] response filed 5-11-05[,] and [plaintiff's] motion for
hearing. [Plaintiff] sought mandamus relief because [defendants] failed to supply
complete unredacted copies of his medical records. As a result of litigation[,]
[plaintiff] obtained complete unredacted copies of the medical records. The award
of costs to [plaintiff] is proper. [Plaintiff,] as a matter of fact[,] prevailed. The court's
dismissal of [plaintiff's] complaint of prejudice was done to terminate the litigation[,]
2
not to reclose [plaintiff's] right to seek costs. [Defendants'] motion to dismiss with
prejudice was tantamount to admission of liability [and] confession of judgment.
Costs are appropriate. [Defendants] ordered to pay plaintiff's costs of $120."
Defendants appeal.
ANALYSIS
Under the common law in Illinois, a successful party is not entitled to recover the
costs of litigation from his opponent. Galowich v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 92 Ill. 2d 157, 162,
441 N.E.2d 318, 320 (1982). The legislature, however, may enact statutes giving the courts
authority to award costs. Gebelein v. Blumfield, 231 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 1012, 597 N.E.2d
265, 267 (1992). Any allocation of the costs of litigation is limited to those specifically
allowed by statute. Woolverton v. McCracken, 321 Ill. App. 3d 440, 442, 748 N.E.2d 327,
329 (2001).
In applying statutes, courts are obligated to effectuate the intent of the legislature as
revealed by the language used. Wilson v. F.B. McAfoos & Co., 344 Ill. App. 3d 452, 457,
800 N.E.2d 177, 181 (2003). In situations where the language is clear and unambiguous, the
plain language must be given effect without exception. Elementary School District 159 v.
Schiller, 221 Ill. 2d 130, 144, 849 N.E.2d 349, 359 (2006). Resort to other tools of statutory
construction is improper if the plain language of the statute is clear and unambiguous.
People v. Jett, 328 Ill. App. 3d 468, 470, 766 N.E.2d 315, 316 (2002). This court should
only consider policy considerations if we cannot discern the intent of the legislature from the
language of the statute. Midkiff v. Gingrich, 355 Ill. App. 3d 857, 861, 824 N.E.2d 1144,
1148 (2005).
The trial court entered the award according to a section of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Code) addressing mandamus. 735 ILCS 5/14-105 (West 2004). Section 14-105
provides:
3
"Judgment–Costs. If judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
shall recover damages and costs. If judgment is entered in favor of the defendant, the
defendant shall recover costs." 735 ILCS 5/14-105 (West 2004).
The award of costs in this case is not authorized under the plain language of the
statute. In mandamus proceedings, costs and damages will not be awarded unless the
plaintiff obtains a judgment of mandamus. In re Marriage of Rossi, 113 Ill. App. 3d 55, 64,
446 N.E.2d 1198, 1204 (1983); see Hatch v. Szymanski, 325 Ill. App. 3d 736, 741, 759
N.E.2d 585, 590 (2001). A judgment was not entered in favor of plaintiff. Indeed, the
complaint for mandamus was dismissed.
The trial court ruled that plaintiff should be allowed to recover costs, reasoning that
plaintiff, in effect, "prevailed" because he received complete medical records as a result of
initiating litigation. This, however, is not the requirement in the Code. Under the plain
language of the Code, costs may be awarded only "[i]f judgment is entered in favor of the
plaintiff." 735 ILCS 5/14-105 (West 2004).
This limitation of judicial authority is consistent with our interpretation of statutory
authority to award costs in suits for personal damages. In Gebelein, a trial court awarded
costs to a medical malpractice plaintiff after a settlement had been reached. Gebelein v.
Blumfield, 231 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 1012, 597 N.E.2d 265, 267 (1992). The award was based
on a section of the Code that provides that costs may be awarded to a plaintiff who sues for
personal damages and "recovers in such action." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 5-108
(now 735 ILCS 5/5-108 (West 2004)). This court reversed the award. We found that the
plain and ordinary meaning of recovery required a judgment in one's favor. Gebelein, 231
Ill. App. 3d at 1014, 597 N.E.2d at 268.
In Gebelein, from the legislature's use of the term recovers, we implied the
prerequisite of a judgment. In actions for mandamus, the legislature was explicit. The
4
statutory authority for an award of costs is expressly limited to situations where "judgment
is entered in favor" of a party (735 ILCS 5/14-105 (West 2004)).
The plain language of the statute restricts the authority of the trial court and governs
our decision. We need not address the issues of sovereign immunity raised by defendants.
The order awarding costs exceeded the authority granted by statute, and we are obligated to
reverse the decision of the trial court.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is reversed.
Reversed.
WELCH, P.J., and CHAPMAN, J., concur.
5
NO. 5-06-0239
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
___________________________________________________________________________________
RONALD HOLTZ, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Clinton County.
)
v. ) No. 04-MR-114
)
STEPHANIE WAGGONER, Records )
Office Supervisor, Centralia Correctional )
Center, and ROBYN HEADLEY, Medical )
Records Supervisor, Centralia Correctional )
Center, ) Honorable
) William J. Becker,
Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, presiding.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion Filed: November 21, 2007
___________________________________________________________________________________
Justices: Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, J.
Honorable Thomas M. Welch, P.J., and
Honorable Melissa A. Chapman, J.,
Concur
___________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, State of Illinois, Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General,
for Paul Racette, Assistant Attorney General, 100 West Randolph, 12th Floor,
Appellants Chicago, IL 60601
___________________________________________________________________________________
Attorney Ronald Holtz, Centralia Correctional Center, P.O. Box 7711, Centralia, IL 62801
for (pro se)
Appellee
___________________________________________________________________________________