SIXTH DIVISION June 9, 2023

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

No. 1-22-0245

DARREN GREEN SR., Individually and as Special ) Administrator for the Estate of Darren Green Jr., ) Deceased, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 2020 L 010860 ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS and CHRISTOPHER ) Honorable EHLERS AND ALEC McCARTHY, Illinois State ) Gerald Cleary, Troopers, ) Judge Presiding. ) Defendants-Appellees. )

PRESIDING JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Oden Johnson and Tailor concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Darren Green Sr. sued the State of Illinois and two Illinois state troopers, Christopher

Ehlers and Alec McCarthy, following the death of his son, Darren Green Jr., who was shot and

killed during a traffic stop initiated by the two troopers. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit,

arguing that sovereign immunity barred the claims asserted in Mr. Green Sr.’s complaint. The

circuit court granted the motion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 On October 13, 2020, Darren Green Sr. filed a complaint against the State of Illinois and No. 1-22-0245

two Illinois state troopers (referred to in this initial complaint as “Troopers John Doe and Richard

Roe”). In the complaint, Mr. Green Sr. alleged that, on October 7, 2020, his son, Darren Green Jr.,

was driving in a vehicle with three other individuals in Harvey, Illinois, when the vehicle was

pulled over by Troopers Doe and Roe for petty equipment violations. During the traffic stop, the

troopers recovered and took possession of a firearm that Trooper Doe used to shoot Mr. Green Jr.

in the back of the head. Mr. Green Sr. further alleged that Trooper Roe “assisted in said shooting”

and that at the time the recovered weapon was fired, Mr. Green Jr. was not in possession of a

weapon and posed no threat to the officers. Mr. Green Jr. died from the injury.

¶4 Mr. Green Sr. asserted claims of wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional

distress, and excessive force, as well as a survival action. He also sought indemnification from the

State of Illinois, as the “[d]efendant Troopers committed the acts alleged *** under color of law

and in the scope of their employment as employees of the State of Illinois.”

¶5 Mr. Green Sr. amended his complaint twice. The second amended complaint, filed on June

2, 2021, is the operative complaint in this appeal. In it, Mr. Green Sr. added three additional counts

of wrongful death and identified Troopers Doe and Roe as Christopher Ehlers and Alec McCarthy.

¶6 The State moved to dismiss Mr. Green Sr.’s second amended complaint on June 22, 2021,

pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2020)),

arguing that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the

complaint due to sovereign immunity. Mr. Green Sr. filed a response on September 16, 2021,

asserting that sovereign immunity did not bar his claims because “the duty not to commit murder”

is an independent duty arising from the criminal code, rather than from defendants’ status as state

employees.

¶7 On October 13, 2021, the circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. The court

-2- No. 1-22-0245

noted in its ruling that Mr. Green Sr. had “relie[d] heavily on the allegation that the Troopers

murdered the plaintiff’s decedent and that the Troopers had a duty independent of their

employment with the State not to commit murder,” but that these assertions were not well-pleaded

because they were conclusory and unsupported by specific facts. In addition to rejecting this

“source of the duty” argument, the court also cited Management Ass’n of Illinois, Inc. v. Board of

Regents of Northern Illinois University,

(1993), for the proposition that an

action is “against the state” for the purposes of sovereign immunity when a judgment for the

plaintiff could operate either to control the actions of the state or subject it to liability. Applying

this standard, the court found that “it is clear that the plaintiff is seeking to subject the State to

liability based on the claims for respondeat superior liability and the claim for indemnification.”

Additionally, the court noted, “if this case were to proceed in the Court, the plaintiff’s claims have

the potential to control the actions of the State by restraining the manner in which the Illinois State

Police curb vehicles and conduct searches.” Upon concluding that sovereign immunity applied and

that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted, the court dismissed the complaint

with prejudice and stated that “the plaintiff is given leave to re-file the case in the Illinois Court of

Claims.”

¶8 Mr. Green Sr. filed a motion to reconsider on November 10, 2021, which was fully briefed.

That same day, he filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. He did not attach a

proposed complaint to his motion. The circuit court granted Mr. Green Sr.’s timely motion to

reconsider on January 21, 2022, on the basis that it had erred in its prior dismissal order by applying

the “source of the duty” analysis, which is only relevant where the state is not named as a party.

The court explained that, in contrast to all the cases cited by Mr. Green Sr. invoking the “source

of the duty” test, here, there was no dispute that the state was the true party in interest in the suit

-3- No. 1-22-0245

because “the plaintiff names the State as a defendant, alleges that the troopers were acting in the

course and scope of their employment with the State, alleges that the State is liable under the theory

of respondeat superior and the plaintiff demands damages from the State.” As it was clear to the

court that the complaint was, on its face, one brought against the state, the court concluded that it

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and, once again, dismissed the complaint with

prejudice.

¶9 In a separate order also filed on January 21, 2022, the court determined that it “likewise

lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint.” Mr.

Green Sr. then moved for reconsideration of the court’s denial of his motion for leave to amend,

attaching for the first time a proposed third amended complaint. The court denied the motion, and

this appeal followed.

¶ 10 II. JURISDICTION

¶ 11 On February 18, 2022, Mr. Green Sr. filed a notice of appeal from the court’s October 13,

2021, and January 21, 2022, orders dismissing his complaint with prejudice and denying him leave

to amend. He amended his notice of appeal on March 2, 2022, to incorporate the court’s February

23, 2022, order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of leave to amend. Accordingly, this

court has jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and Rule 303

(eff. July 1, 2017), governing appeals from final judgments entered by the circuit court in civil

cases.

¶ 12 III. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 Mr. Green Sr. argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in dismissing his complaint

under section 2-619 of the Code upon determining that sovereign immunity barred his claims.

Sovereign immunity does not apply as to his claims against Troopers Ehlers and McCarthy, he

-4- No. 1-22-0245

asserts, because he alleged that their conduct “constituted murder, was intentional, extreme and

outrageous, beyond all bounds of human decency, a breach of their duty to the public, in violation

of Illinois’s law, and in excess of their authority.” Mr. Green Sr. also argues that the circuit court

abused its discretion when it denied him leave to file a third amended complaint curing the defects

identified by the circuit court in its dismissal orders. We address each argument in turn.

¶ 14 A. Dismissal Under Section 2-619

¶ 15 The purpose of a section 2-619 motion to dismiss is to dispose of issues of law and easily

proven issues of fact at the outset of litigation. Dratewska-Zator v. Rutherford,

. The movant of a section 2-619 motion admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint

but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that defeats the claim, such that section 2-619 is

an appropriate method to raise a sovereign immunity defense. Leetaru v. Board of Trustees of the

University of Illinois,

.

¶ 16 In filing a section 2-619 motion, defendants in this case accepted that Mr. Green Sr. had a

legally cognizable claim, but they argued he was pursuing that claim before the wrong tribunal.

The circuit court agreed and dismissed Mr. Green Sr.’s suit, determining that, due to the principles

of sovereign immunity, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the only court authorized to

hear his claims was the Illinois Court of Claims.

¶ 17 In reviewing a section 2-619 dismissal, we construe all well-pleaded facts as true and draw

all reasonable inferences that may arise from those facts in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. ¶ 4.

However, a court cannot accept as true conclusions of law and conclusory factual allegations

unsupported by specific facts. Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville,

. Dismissal is proper under this section if the court “does not have jurisdiction of the subject

matter of the action.” 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1) (West 2020). We review a circuit court’s grant of a

-5- No. 1-22-0245

motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Leetaru,

,

¶ 41.

¶ 18 Sovereign immunity is a common law doctrine that protects the government from being

sued without its consent. Jackson v. Alverez,

(2005). The use of sovereign

immunity in Illinois courts is governed by the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (Immunity Act) (745

ILCS 5/1 (West 2020)), which resuscitated the doctrine after it was briefly abolished with the

adoption of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. See Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 4; Parmar v.

Madigan,

, ¶ 19. Section 1 of the Immunity Act states that “[e]xcept as provided

in *** the Court of Claims Act *** the State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in

any court.” (Emphasis added.) 745 ILCS 5/1 (West 2020). The Court of Claims Act, in turn, grants

the Illinois Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over particular categories of lawsuits against the

state, including “[a]ll claims against the State for damages in cases sounding in tort, if a like cause

of action would lie against a private person or corporation in a civil suit.” 705 ILCS 505/8(d) (West

2022).

¶ 19 As our supreme court explained in People ex rel. Manning v. Nickerson,

(1998), sovereign immunity “is not about fairness.” It is about jurisdiction, and with regard to

tort claims, “the legislature’s directive could not be more clear: tort claims against the state must

be brought in the Court of Claims.”

The difficulty, however, is that the doctrine is not confined

exclusively to actions that name the State of Illinois as a defendant. It will also operate to protect

individual state employees named as defendants where the impact of the suit “makes it, for all

practical purposes, a suit against the State.” Welch v. Illinois Supreme Court,

(2001). But when exactly is a suit against an individual in reality a suit against the state

such that sovereign immunity applies? Attempts to grapple with this question have led to the

-6- No. 1-22-0245

development of a considerable and not-always-consistent body of case law. See Leetaru,

(Burke, J., dissenting, joined by Freeman and Theis, JJ.)

¶ 20 As a general matter, the determination of whether an action against an individual is one

against the state depends upon the issues involved and the relief sought and not simply the formal

identification of the parties. Parmar,

. In arguing that sovereign immunity

does not bar his claims against the state troopers in this case, Mr. Green Sr. relies on two lines of

cases dealing with suits against state employees. The first line of cases involves what is most often

referred to as the “officer suit exception” to sovereign immunity. In the second line of cases, courts

have applied the three-part test set forth in Healy v. Vaupel, 133 Ill. 2d. 295, 308-09 (1990). For

the following reasons, we conclude that the allegations in the second amended complaint fail to

bring this claim within either of these exceptions to sovereign immunity.

¶ 21 1. The Officer Suit Exception

¶ 22 Our supreme court has recognized that a state officer will not be protected by sovereign

immunity if the plaintiff alleges that “the state officer’s conduct violates statutory or constitutional

law or is in excess of his or her authority.” Parmar,

, ¶ 22. This exception is rooted

in the principle, originating in federal courts, that conduct undertaken by a state officer without

legal authority strips the officer of his or her official status. PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust

Co.,

(2005). There is, however, one crucial limitation to the officer suit

exception: it is only available in cases where the plaintiffs are seeking prospective relief, typically

in the form of an injunction. Indeed, this exception “is interchangeably styled the ‘officer suit

exception’ or the ‘prospective injunctive relief exception,’ ” which is perhaps a more clarifying

name. Giovenco-Pappas v. Berauer,

. As our supreme court made

clear in Parmar,

, “a complaint seeking damages for a past wrong does not

-7- No. 1-22-0245

fall within the officer suit exception to sovereign immunity.”

¶ 23 In his briefs, Mr. Green Sr. relies on language from Leetaru and Parmar, cases which both

involved the officer suit exception. But because Mr. Green Sr. is seeking damages for a past wrong,

the officer suit exception is not available to him, and he cannot avoid sovereign immunity merely

by alleging that the conduct of the state troopers violated statutory or constitutional law. To show

that his claims against the defendant troopers are not substantively against the state, Mr. Green Sr.

must instead rely on the more complicated analysis set forth in the other line of sovereign immunity

cases involving the Healy factors.

¶ 24 2. The Healy Factors

¶ 25 Under the three-part Healy test, claims for damages against state employees are considered

claims against the state, and sovereign immunity will therefore apply, where (1) there are no

allegations that the employee of the state acted beyond the scope of his or her authority through

wrongful acts, (2) the duty alleged to have been breached was not owed to the public generally

independent of the fact of state employment, and (3) the complained-of actions involve matters

ordinarily within that employee’s normal and official functions of the state. Healy, 133 Ill. 2d. at

308-09. We look to each of these factors in reviewing the allegations of Mr. Green Sr.’s complaint.

¶ 26 a. Scope of Authority

¶ 27 To show that a state employee acted beyond the scope of their authority, it is not sufficient

merely to allege, in conclusory terms, that a defendant did something unlawful. As we have

repeatedly held, “[a] State employee’s violation of policy, regulation, or even statute does not

necessarily avert the application of sovereign immunity.” Welch,

; see also

Grainger v. Harrah’s Casino,

(“a state employee does not act

outside the scope of his authority (thereby precluding the application of sovereign immunity)

-8- No. 1-22-0245

merely by committing a tort.”). In Jackson,

, we explained that “[b]ecause

sovereign immunity presupposes the possibility of a legal wrong by a state employee [citation],

and legal wrongs are, per se, unauthorized, the relevant question cannot be whether the employee

had authority to commit the legal wrong,” but rather “whether the employee intended to perform

some function within the scope of his or her authority when committing the legal wrong.”

Requiring this heightened level of specificity is necessary to prevent this exception from

swallowing the rule.

¶ 28 In his second amended complaint, while Mr. Green Sr. repeatedly described the actions of

Troopers Ehlers and McCarthy as willful and wanton and without lawful justification, he did not

allege any specific facts supporting an inference that the troopers were doing something other than

attempting to perform some function within the scope of their authority when the injury occurred.

As the circuit court suggested in its first dismissal order, citing Nikelly v. Stubing,

(1990), this could have come in the form of additional allegations that defendants harbored

personal animosity towards the decedent or that their actions were motivated by malice or some

other improper or illicit purpose. Mr. Green Sr. included no such allegations. He did, however,

state repeatedly in his complaint that at the time of the shooting, the troopers were acting under

color of law and in the course and scope of their employment with the state. Under the first prong

of the Healy test, Mr. Green’s claims were claims against the state.

¶ 29 b. Source of the Duty

¶ 30 The bulk of Mr. Green Sr.’s argument on appeal focuses on the second Healy criterion,

which our supreme court has referred to as the “source of the duty” test. Jinkins v. Lee,

(2004). Under this test,

“[w]here the charged act of negligence arose out of the State employee’s breach of a duty

-9- No. 1-22-0245

that is imposed on him solely by virtue of his State employment, sovereign immunity will

bar maintenance of the action in circuit court. [Citations.] Conversely, where the employee

is charged with breaching a duty imposed on him independently of his State employment,

sovereign immunity will not attach and a negligence claim may be maintained against him

in circuit court.” (Emphases in original.) Currie v. Lao,

(1992).

An independent duty is understood to be “a duty imposed by the employee’s status as something

other than an employee.” Brandon v. Bonell,

(2006). Relying on this

test, Mr. Green Sr. argues that sovereign immunity is inapplicable as to his claims against the

troopers because, when they shot and killed the decedent, they breached the “duty not to commit

murder,” a duty that is imposed upon them independent of their status as state troopers.

¶ 31 In support of his argument, Mr. Green Sr. relies primarily on Currie,

, which

he refers to as “particularly on point,” and several other cases that followed in Currie’s wake where

our supreme court found that sovereign immunity did not bar the plaintiffs’ claims based on the

court’s application of the source of the duty analysis (Jinkins,

; Loman v. Freeman,

(2008)). In Currie,

, a plaintiff was making a legal turn in his

pickup truck when a state trooper in a patrol car, driving the wrong way down a one-way road,

crashed into him. The plaintiff sued the trooper for negligence, and a jury entered a verdict in the

plaintiff’s favor, awarding him damages.

. The trooper argued that sovereign immunity

barred the plaintiff’s claims because he was performing official duties at the time of the collision,

which meant the claims against him were really claims against the state.

Our supreme court

rejected the trooper’s argument, finding that the duty he was charged with breaching “did not arise

as a result of his employment as a State trooper, but rather arose as a result of his status as the

driver of an automobile on a public roadway.”

.

- 10 - No. 1-22-0245

¶ 32 This holding, however, was a limited one based on facts that indicated to the court that at

the time of the collision, the defendant trooper was “not performing a uniquely governmental

function.”

. Specifically, the trooper was not in his usual jurisdiction at the time of

the incident, there was no record of any call for assistance even though the trooper claimed that he

was responding to an emergency, and the manner in which the trooper drove (at the speed limit

and without flashing lights) was not suggestive of any emergency or official purpose.

These

facts all supported an inference that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle like any ordinary

member of the public at the time of the collision; he just happened to be in a police vehicle. As the

trooper was not doing anything “uniquely related to his employment” when he crashed into the

plaintiff’s truck, the court concluded that his duties in that moment stemmed not from his job, but

from his status as a driver on the road.

. Sovereign immunity, therefore, did not apply.

¶ 33 The Currie court was careful to distinguish this narrow, fact-based holding from the result

reached in Campbell v. White,

(1991), where the Fourth District held that an

action against a state trooper involved in a car accident was barred by sovereign immunity. Our

supreme court differentiated the two cases as follows:

“In [Campbell], the officer, while engaged in the high-speed chase of a suspect, struck the

suspect’s automobile, causing the suspect’s death. Thus, although the officer in Campbell

was operating a motor vehicle, he was doing so in a manner in which only a governmental

official is authorized to act. [Citation]. The operation of the vehicle, and the duties

accompanying that operation, arose solely as a result of the officer’s State employment.

[The defendant in Currie], on the other hand, was not performing a function that could not

lawfully be performed by other than a governmental official. Rather, [he] was performing

the nongovernmental activity of driving a motor vehicle in a routine manner on a public

- 11 - No. 1-22-0245

street.” Currie,

.

The allegations in Mr. Green Sr.’s complaint describe a scenario that is far closer to Campbell than

it is to Currie. Like the officer engaged in a high-speed chase in Campbell, when the defendant

troopers in this case pulled over the decedent, they were unquestionably performing a function—

traffic enforcement—that could not lawfully be performed by anyone other than an agent of the

state. Any “duties accompanying that operation” arose solely by virtue of their state employment.

¶ 34 Two other cases cited by Mr. Green Sr.—Jinkins,

, and Loman, 229 Ill. 2d

104—are distinguishable on the same basis. In both cases, our supreme court, relying largely on

the reasoning from its prior decision in Currie, determined that sovereign immunity provided no

protection where defendants employed by the state were not performing a uniquely governmental

function at the time of injury. Jinkins,

(a doctor at a state-run mental health

facility who allegedly failed to order the involuntarily commitment of a patient who subsequently

committed suicide was not performing a uniquely governmental function, as there is no substantial

difference in the criteria for involuntary commitment between public and private hospitals and his

duties in treating the decedent derived from his professional obligations as a licensed physician,

not his status as a public employee); Loman,

(a veterinarian employed by a public

university who performed a surgery that left a horse lame was not performing a uniquely

governmental function because the source of the breached duty was not his status as a public

employee, but rather the common law duty he owed to his clients and their animals as a trained

veterinarian, duties and professional standards which veterinarians working in both the public and

private sectors are obligated to follow.)

¶ 35 Mr. Green also cites Bianchi v. McQueen,

, and Fritz v. Johnston,

(2004). In Bianchi, sovereign immunity did not apply because the plaintiffs—who

- 12 - No. 1-22-0245

sued a special prosecutor and his staff alleging malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, and defamation—included in their complaint allegations detailing several

specific incidents involving the fabrication of evidence and “deliberate investigative fraud.”

Bianchi,

. The court found that these allegations, accepted as

true were “certainly *** outside [the] defendants’ authority as employees of the State,” and were

“sufficient to establish that [the] defendants acted in excess of their authority and in violation of

applicable laws such that the Court of Claims does not have exclusive jurisdiction.”

¶ 36 Similarly, in Fritz,

, our supreme court held that a public employee

defendant was not protected by sovereign immunity where his alleged conduct—knowingly

providing a false statement to the Illinois State Police to besmirch the integrity of a competitor for

a job promotion—violated a criminal statute that he was obligated to follow independent of his

status as a state employee. The “duty not to make false accusations,” the court explained, “is

imposed by the Illinois Criminal Code, which makes no distinction between accusations by state

employees and those leveled by non-state employees.” (Emphasis omitted.)

¶ 37 Unlike the “duty not to make false accusations” at issue in Fritz, a duty which derives from

criminal laws that apply to everyone—public and nonpublic employees alike—in this case, it is

relevant that the criminal code expressly permits law enforcement officers to use force (including

deadly force) in certain situations, where ordinary civilians would not be permitted to do so. See

720 ILCS 5/7-5(a) (West 2020) (A peace officer “is justified in the use of any force which he

reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, to be necessary to effect the arrest

and of any force which he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, to be

necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm.”). The existence of this statute also

differentiates Mr. Green Sr.’s case from Bianchi. As the State noted in its brief when responding

- 13 - No. 1-22-0245

to Mr. Green Sr.’s reliance on Bianchi, while there will never be a legal justification for a

prosecutor to fabricate evidence, “there may be reasons why an officer may need to use force in

the course of his duties.”

¶ 38 In light of the use of force statute, the two central factual allegations of Mr. Green Sr.’s

complaint—that Mr. Green Jr. was unarmed at the moment he was shot and that Trooper Ehlers

shot him in the back of the head with a gun that had been found in Mr. Green Jr.’s car—accepted

as true, do not necessarily establish the elements of first degree murder. Without more context,

these facts are simply not enough to support an inference that this shooting was “without lawful

justification,” which is part of the statutory definition of first degree murder. 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)

(West 2020).

¶ 39 In sum, we are not persuaded by the cases Mr. Green Sr. cites in support of his argument

that sovereign immunity does not apply because his second amended complaint adequately alleged

the breach of the duty not to commit murder. Currie does not apply because, unlike what allegedly

occurred here, the tortious conduct at issue in that case took place while the defendant was engaged

in functions that the court found were not uniquely governmental in nature. Fritz and Bianchi are

inapplicable because, in those cases, the specific factual allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaints,

accepted as true, either plainly established a violation of a criminal statute that made no distinction

between public and nonpublic employees or described conduct for which there was no possible

legal justification. Mr. Green Sr.’s allegations, in contrast, are too conclusory and lack the

specificity required to establish illegal conduct that would take his claims outside the jurisdiction

of the Court of Claims.

¶ 40 c. Official Functions

¶ 41 As to the third criterion from Healy (whether the complained-of actions involve matters

- 14 - No. 1-22-0245

ordinarily within that employee’s normal and official functions), we agree with the circuit court

that it is clearly satisfied in this case and does not merit further discussion. As the circuit court

stated in its initial dismissal order, “the curbing of the car for petty equipment violations and the

search of the car, and actions ancillary thereto, certainly involve matters within the Troopers’

normal and official functions, and those functions are a uniquely governmental function.”

¶ 42 All three Healy criteria indicate that Mr. Green Sr.’s claims against the two troopers, as

expressed in his second amended complaint, are substantively against the state such that sovereign

immunity applies. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the claims against the

two state troopers for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

¶ 43 B. Denial of Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint

¶ 44 Mr. Green Sr. next argues that the circuit court erred in denying him leave to file a third

amended complaint. We agree.

¶ 45 As a general matter, the decision whether to allow or deny a motion for leave to amend

rests within the sound discretion of the circuit court (Kupianen v. Graham,

(1982)), and absent an abuse of that discretion, we will not overturn the circuit court’s decision

(Sellers v. Rudert,

(2009)). However, where, as here, “we are

confronted with a situation where the trial court erroneously believed that it had no discretion,” we

need not find an abuse of discretion to reverse. Allen v. Kewanee Machinery & Conveyor Co.,

(1974).

¶ 46 In this case, as the State documents in its brief, there were several legitimate reasons the

circuit court could have provided when it denied Mr. Green Sr.’s motion for leave to amend.

Prominent among them was Mr. Green Sr.’s failure to attach to his motion a proposed third

amended complaint for the court’s consideration when he asked for leave to amend. By not

- 15 - No. 1-22-0245

attaching a proposed amendment, which would illustrate to the court how exactly he sought to

address the defects identified in its initial dismissal order, Mr. Green Sr. “significantly

diminishe[d] [the] court’s ability to analyze the appropriate factors for determining whether leave

should be granted.” Sellers,

-55 (citing Ignarski v. Norbut,

(1995)).

¶ 47 The State also criticizes Mr. Green for waiting until after his complaint was dismissed

“with prejudice” to seek leave to amend, arguing that this delay made his motion untimely under

section 2-616(a), which allows for amendments “[a]t any time before final judgment.” (Emphasis

added.) 735 ILCS 5/2-616(a) (West 2022). Mr. Green responds to this argument by pointing out

that under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273 (eff. Jan. 1, 1967), dismissals for lack of jurisdiction

should be without prejudice. Accordingly, he argues, the circuit court erred when it dismissed his

case “with prejudice,” and the court’s dismissal order should therefore not be considered a final

judgment for purposes of filing a motion for leave to amend.

¶ 48 While Mr. Green Sr. is correct that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not really a

dismissal “with prejudice,” in that it is not a decision on the merits for the purposes of res judicata

(see River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park,

(1998)), the fact remains that

he did not seek leave to amend his complaint until after the circuit court believed that it had

concluded its review of this case and, even then, his motion was made without an attached

proposed complaint. When Mr. Green Sr. finally did provide the court with a proposed amended

complaint, it was as an attachment to his motion to reconsider the court’s order denying him leave,

which was after the second dismissal order. This was improper, as the purpose of a motion for

reconsideration is to bring to the court’s attention newly discovered evidence, changes in the law,

or errors in the court’s previous application of existing law. Farley Metals, Inc. v. Barber Colman

- 16 - No. 1-22-0245

Co.,

(1994).

¶ 49 We note that it remains unclear to us precisely when the proper time to bring this motion

for leave to amend in the first instance would have been because, after granting Mr. Green Sr.’s

motion to reconsider its original dismissal order, the circuit court then vacated that original

dismissal order and dismissed the case a second time on very different grounds. Thus, an amended

complaint that might have cured the defects noted in the first dismissal order might have been

different than a complaint drafted to avoid the defects noted in the second dismissal order.

¶ 50 In any event, the circuit court mentioned neither the issue of timeliness under section

2-616(a) nor the failure to attach a proposed amended complaint when it denied Mr. Green Sr.’s

motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Instead, the sole reasoning the circuit court

provided in its January 21, 2022, order denying Mr. Green Sr.’s motion was the following: “Based

on the Court’s finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court likewise lacks

subject matter jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint.” This

justification was incorrect as a matter of law, as the circuit court retains jurisdiction to reconsider

judgments and orders within 30 days of their entry. Won v. Grant Park 2, L.L.C.,

. This retained jurisdiction exists even in cases like this one where the circuit

court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy before it. A

finding of no subject matter jurisdiction does not divest a court of its authority to entertain timely

postjudgment motions challenging that finding.

¶ 51 Our “ ‘primary consideration’ ” in determining whether to allow amendment of pleadings

is whether doing so would further the ends of justice. Bangaly v. Baggiani,

(quoting Regas v. Associated Radiologists, Ltd.,

(1992)).

In light of the liberal policy in Illinois of allowing parties to amend their pleadings to permit them

- 17 - No. 1-22-0245

to fully present their causes of action (Jeffrey M. Goldberg & Associates, Ltd. v. Collins Tuttle &

Co.,

(1994)) and considering that, in this case, the circuit court’s

justification for denying such an opportunity was erroneous, we agree with Mr. Green Sr. that he

should be granted an opportunity to file a third amended complaint.

¶ 52 On remand, Mr. Green Sr. will have an opportunity to show how any of his claims fall

outside of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. As he appears to recognize in the

proposed third amended complaint attached to the motion to reconsider, any claim asserted directly

against the State of Illinois in the circuit court is barred under the Immunity Act. Additionally, as

we have made clear in this opinion, his claims against Troopers Ehlers and McCarthy, in their

individual capacities, for actions that occurred during this traffic stop, are also barred to the extent

that they rely on conclusory statements unsupported by specific factual allegations demonstrating

conduct that falls outside the scope of sovereign immunity. If Mr. Green Sr. seeks to proceed

against these state law enforcement officers in the circuit court rather than in the Court of Claims,

he must allege specific, nonconclusory facts, which, accepted as true, are sufficient to establish

that their alleged conduct violated a criminal statute that would apply to them in this factual

context.

¶ 53 As we have said in the past, “[w]here facts of necessity are within [the] defendant’s

knowledge and not within [the] plaintiff’s knowledge, a complaint which is as complete as the

nature of the case allows is sufficient.” Yuretich v. Sole,

(1994); see also

Patrick Engineering, Inc.,

(advising that, where a plaintiff does not “have

the benefit of discovery tools” to expose certain necessary details, it will at least “have knowledge

of what it did to learn those details, and should allege any efforts taken”). Here, based on comments

made by the parties at oral argument, it appears that Mr. Green Sr.’s counsel had some pre-

- 18 - No. 1-22-0245

discovery access to relevant information about the shooting that was not included in the record or

in any iterations of the complaint. For example, Mr. Green Sr.’s counsel alluded to the existence

of body-worn camera footage which documents a portion of the traffic stop and subsequent

shooting. He stated that the footage showed that after the troopers recovered a gun from Mr. Green

Jr.’s car, the “car then takes off and crashed,” at which point one of the troopers comes around to

the driver’s side of the vehicle before the gun is fired. These factual allegations provide critical

additional context as to what transpired. Counsel for the State also noted that Mr. Green Sr.

subpoenaed and received an investigation file from the Illinois State Police about the shooting.

There were also individuals in the car with Mr. Green Jr. who presumably witnessed the events

leading up to the shooting and could have provided additional information to use in the complaint.

When Mr. Green Sr. gets a chance to amend his complaint on remand, he can draw on all available

sources of information to make his allegations as specific and non-conclusory as possible.

¶ 54 IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 55 For the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of Mr. Green Sr.’s second

amended complaint, but we reverse the circuit court’s denial of Mr. Green Sr.’s motion for leave

to file a third amended complaint.

¶ 56 Affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded.

- 19 - No. 1-22-0245

Green v. State,

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 2020-L- 010860; the Hon. Gerald Cleary, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys Brandon Brown, of Brown Law Ltd., and Andre M. Grant, both for of Chicago, for appellant. Appellant:

Attorneys Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, for Solicitor General, and Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Assistant Attorney Appellee: General, of counsel), for appellee.

- 20 -