Milton D. Smith and Willa J. Smith v. State of Illinois

ORDER

KAPLAN, J. This matter coming before the Court to be heard on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court being fully advised in the premises; THE COURT FINDS THAT:

[*295] 1. On or about May 12, 2006, Claimant filed the above “tort” action before the Court of Claims naming as parties respondent the Will County Circuit Court, Chief Judge Stephen D. White, Judge Herman Haase and Pamela J. McGuire, Will County Clerk of Court. 2. This Court has exclusive and limited jurisdiction against the State of Illinois, and only the State, as set forth in the Court of Claims Act, 705 ILCS 505/1 et seq., and the Court of Claims Regulations, 74 Ill.Adm. Code 790. 3. The only proper Respondent before the Court of Claims is the State of Illinois, and the individual Respondents, Will County Circuit Court, Chief Judge Stephen D. White, Herman Haase, Judge, and Pamela J. McGuire, Will County Clerk of Court, should, therefore, be dismissed as parties to this action. 4. Claimants’ claims arise out of a foreclosure action filed on behalf of Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation in February of 2003.

Judge Haase presided over the case, which was completed by an Order of Possession posted on November 13, 2003 (see Complaint, “Annex C”). 5. A miscellaneous “tort” action would fall within the two (2) year limitation of 705 ILCS 505/22 (h), and would have required Claimants’ complaint to be filed by November 14, 2005.

Claimants failed to file prior to that date. 6. Claimants allege that Codilis & Associates, on behalf Chase Manhattan Bank, “colluded” with Judge Haase regarding this foreclosure. (Complaint, ¶ 6, 15, 20). 7. Claimants also seem to be alleging that Judge Haase failed to provide due process in not allowing Claimants’ to speak on their own behalf (Complaint, ¶ 7). However, it appears from the Complaint and “Annex C” (the Circuit Court docket), that Claimants did receive notices and did appear before Judge Haase and other judges in the Circuit Court of Will County. 8. In addition, Claimants appear to have gone to a non-judicial forum, the Moorish Science Temple of America, calling itself an “International Tribunal,” and are alleging that decisions of this “Tribunal” somehow grant Claimants’ rights before this Court and against the named Respondents. (Complaint ¶’s 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29). 9. Under 705 ILCS 505/8, this Court has not been granted jurisdiction to enforce, or decide the validity of, any “Notarial Protest and Notice of Administrative Judgment, Certificate of Dishonor,” which may have been issued by said “Tribunal.” 10. The Illinois Court of Appeals has already dismissed Claimants’ appeal, and a complaint to the Judicial Review Board was unfounded. There also was, according to the Complaint, “Annex [*296] K-2," a finding of Civil Contempt against Claimants in Will County. 11. Claimants are seeking $300,000,000.00, well over the jurisdictional tort limitations of this Court, and estoppel, an equitable remedy outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

Pamela McGuire, Will County Circuit Court Clerk:

12. This Court has ruled that the State cannot be held liable for the alleged tortuous acts of a clerk of the circuit court in, Washington v. State of Illinois (State’s Attorney of Cook County), and Washlow v. State of Illinois (Clerk of the Circuit Court of Livingston County), 54 Ill.Ct.Cl. 317 (2001) (joint opinion on jurisdiction). 13. In the above opinion, this Court provides an exhaustive review of the issue of jurisdiction over County offices and liability of the State. In the analysis of the cases, this Court held that the State cannot, under the current statutory and constitutional strictures governing the Court, be held vicariously liable for the actions of a County Clerk under respondeat superior principles, nor does this Court have jurisdiction over those offices directly under the Court of Claims Act and Regulations.

CHIEF JUDGE STEPHEN D. WHITE and JUDGE HERMAN S. HAASE and THE WILL COUNTY COURT 14. Claimants make no allegations of wrongdoing by Judge White, other than that he failed to answer their non-judicial filings from the Moorish Science Temple of America’s “International Tribunal.” As stated above, this Court has not been granted jurisdiction over this “Tribunal’s” actions. 15. Claimants only allegations, other than failing to answer the “Tribunal” filings described above, against Judge Haase are for “colluding” in the foreclosure proceedings with the Plaintiff’s counsel. 16. Both judges’ only contact with Claimants was a result of their judicial roles, and in the course of their judicial duties. A judge is absolutely immune from liability for acts committed while exercising the authority vested in him, with only two exceptions: actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity and actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. Grund v. Donegan, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1034, 700 N.E.2d 157, 233 Ill. Dec. 56 (1st Dist. 1998). Neither exception applies in this case. Judges have absolute immunity for acts performed in a judicial capacity, irrespective of whether the act was done mistakenly, maliciously or [*297] in excess of authority. Illinois Court Driver Improvement Educational Foundation v. Peoria Journal Star, Inc., 144 Ill. App. 3d, 494 N.E.2d 939 (1986); Stump v. Starkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099 (1978). 17. Absent the allegations against two of its judges, Claimants make no claim against the Circuit Court of Will County as a separate and distinct entity. 18. Claimants make no claim against the State of Illinois as a separate and distinct entity.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed with prejudice.