Werner v. Board of Education of the Pope County Community Unit School District No.1 et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 18 MOTION to Vacate Dissolve or Reconsider the State Court's Ex Parte Order Granting Plaintiff's Writ of Certiorari filed by Board of Education of the Pope County Community Unit School District No.1, Pope County Community Unit School District No. 1. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/4/2012. (dka, )

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JODY WERNER, as Mother and Next Friend
of B.W., a Minor,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:11-cv-01095-JPG-SCW
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE POPE
COUNTY COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL
DISTRICT #1, and POPE COUNTY
COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT
#1,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ Motion to Vacate the State
Court’s Order (Doc. 18) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 19). The plaintiff, Werner on behalf
of B.W., a minor, filed a Response in Opposition to the motion (Doc. 20). This matter came to
the Court after being removed from the Circuit Court in Pope County, Illinois. The defendants,
the Pope County Community Unit School District #1 Board of Education and School District
(“Pope County”) seek to dissolve the state court order granting certiorari for review.
BACKGROUND
1. Factual
The Court already stated the facts in its prior order denying Werner’s motion to remand
(Doc. 14). This matter involves a minor, B.W., who was expelled from Pope County Community
High School after allegedly knowingly conveying false information about an attempt to destroy
school property with a bomb on October 31, 2011. Pope County Community High School held
an expulsion hearing on November 15, 2011, during which several written statements were

1

presented as evidence against B.W., with only one of the authors of the statements present for
questioning. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Education voted to expel B.W. from
school for two calendar years. The hearing provides the basis for the present lawsuit in which
Werner alleges the proceedings violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and the Illinois School Code. Werner also sought a
preliminary injunction in Illinois state court.
2. Procedural
Werner filed this case in Illinois State Court as a “Petition for Certiorari” (Doc. 2-1).
Werner used this mechanism to allege a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and two state law claims, one under the Due
Process Clause of the Illinois Constitution and one under the Illinois School Code. Pope County
removed the case to federal court and Werner then motioned to remand it to state court (Doc. 3).
This Court denied the motion to remand (Doc. 14) finding federal jurisdiction existed and
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the two closely related state law claims. Pope County
filed its answer on January 5, 2012 (Doc. 9) and Werner answered the affirmative defenses on
March 8, 2012 (Doc. 22). The parties submitted a joint discovery and scheduling order which
was adopted by the Court on January 30, 2012 (Doc. 17).
After removing the case here, Pope County now asks the Court to “vacate, dissolve, or
reconsider” the state court’s order granting the certiorari (Doc. 18). In support of this request,
Pope County argues the state court did not hold a hearing prior to granting Werner’s certiorari
request. Pope County states that because the writ is discretionary, the Court must find special
cause to issue it. Werner counters that the motion is untimely as Pope County has already filed

2

an answer and a discovery schedule has already been set. Werner further argues there is no legal
basis for dissolving the order because the writ does not require a hearing to be held.
ANALYSIS
I.

Standard
Both parties cite to 28 U.S.C. § 1450 which states “[a]ll injunctions, orders, and other

proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until
dissolved or modified by the district court.” The Supreme Court has described the purpose of
the statute to be judicial economy and to ensure orders entered by the state courts “to protect
various rights of the parties will not lapse upon removal.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S.
423, 436 (U.S. 1974). After a case is removed to federal court, federal rather than state law
governs the remainder of the proceedings, including state court orders issued prior to removal.
Id. at 437. 28 U.S.C. § 1450 “implies as much by recognizing the district court's authority to
dissolve or modify injunctions, orders, and all other proceedings had in state court prior to
removal.” Id.
In Illinois, the writ of certiorari enables a party who has no other avenue of appeal or
review to obtain review by a court exercising quasi-judicial functions. Reichert v. Court of
Claims of State of Illinois, 203 Ill.2d 257, 260, 786 N.E.2d 174, 177 (Ill. 2003). The purpose of
the writ is to have the entire record of the inferior tribunal brought before the court to determine
whether that body proceeded according to the applicable law. Stratton v. Wenona Community
Unit Dist. No. 1, 133 Ill.2d 413, 427, 551 N.E.2d 640 (Ill. 1990). “[I]ssuance of a writ of
certiorari is within the discretion of the court, the purpose of the writ being to prevent injustice.

3

The writ should not issue where it would operate inequitably or unjustly, or in the absence of
substantial injury or injustice to the petitioner.” Id. at 428 (internal quotations omitted).
II.

Discussion
Pope County argues the order granting the writ should be vacated because they were not

given a hearing before it was issued. Pope County does not provide the court any legal basis
under which it is entitled to hearing in a certiorari proceeding. Werner argues Pope County is
not entitled to a hearing as long as cause was shown for the petition. Both parties cite very old
case law in support of their positions. Werner looks to Magoon, which held cause must be shown
by the petition or the petition will not be granted but granted the petition on its face without a
hearing. Board of Supervisors v. Magoon, 109 Ill. 142, 146 (Ill. 1884). Pope County cites to a
case from the same century, Trustees of Schools Tp. 21 N v. School Directors of Union Dist.,
1878 WL 9814 (Ill. 1878) and argues it required “special cause” to be shown. In Trustees, the
court simply stated “the writ of certiorari, when used for the purpose of correcting the
proceedings of inferior tribunals, is not a writ of right, but it issues only upon application to the
court, upon special cause shown.” Id. at 1.
The Court does not find Pope County’s argument convincing. The writ of certiorari is a
discretionary writ. Stratton, 133 Ill.2d at 428. The “special cause shown” referred to by Pope
County further illustrates the discretion of the issuing court. Trustees, 1878 WL at 1. The court in
that case did not illustrate what constituted “special cause” but rather seemed to be emphasizing
the writ was not a right but rather required a “something extra.” Werner submitted the petition
which discusses the alleged violations and an affidavit to the state court. The Illinois state court
saw the needed “special cause” when it acted within its discretion to grant the petition. Pope
County has not presented sufficient reason to overrule the discretion of the state court. Indeed,

4

this Court’s ability to vacate or dissolve a state court’s order is also discretionary and the Court is
not convinced to exercise its discretion to overturn the discretionary order of another court. See
28 U.S.C. § 1450. Further, the type of hearing Pope County suggests in its memorandum,
reviewing the merits of the writ and presenting evidence as to why Werner was not substantially
injured, appears to be the very hearing the Court will hold to determine whether Werner’s rights
were violated. See Stratton 133 Ill.2d at 429. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds it
would impede judicial economy and resources to vacate the state court’s order. The answers
have been filed by both parties and the parties have prepared a joint discovery report. Given the
allegations of Werner, a student allegedly being kept out of school without cause, it is in the
interest of justice to resolve this case judiciously and expeditiously. The Court will not draw out
this process by using its discretion to reconsider a discretionary order of the Illinois state court.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Pope County’s Motion to Vacate, Dissolve, or Reconsider the State
Court’s “Ex Parte” Order Granting Plaintiff’s Writ of Certiorari (Doc. 18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 4, 2012
s./ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

5