IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Chyvette A. Valentine,
Plaintiff–Appellant, Pro Se
v.
Scottie M. Pippen, et al.,
Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal No. 1-25-1195
On Petition for Leave to Appeal from the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, No. 1-25-1195,
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 2024-L-002166,
Hon. Maire Dempsey, Judge Presiding.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
NOW COMES Plaintiff–Appellant, Chyvette A. Valentine, appearing pro se, and pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315, respectfully petitions this Court for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, First District, in the above-captioned matter.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities ..............................
.............................. i Jurisdictional Statement ..............................
...................... 1 Issues Presented for Review ..............................
................. 2 Statement of the Case and Facts ..............................
......... 3 Reasons for Granting the Petition ..............................
........ 5 Argument ..............................
.............................. ............ 7 Conclusion ..............................
.............................. ......... 11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954)
Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656 (1973)
People v. Majer, 131 Ill. App. 3d 80 (1st Dist. 1985)
People v. Salem, 2016 IL 118693
Statutes & Constitutional Provisions
28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)
42 U.S.C. § 1983
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1
Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2
Illinois Supreme Court Rules
Rule 315
Rule 367
Rule 61, Canon 2
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
This Court has jurisdiction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a), which permits discretionary review of Appellate Court judgments. Federal questions are implicated under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the Appellate Court’s denial of rehearing without meaningful consideration deprives Appellant of due process and equal protection.
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Whether the Appellate Court erred in denying Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing on the same day it was filed, raising substantial concerns regarding due process and the appearance of justice.
Whether such summary denials contravene Rule 367 and violate Appellant’s rights under the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions.
Whether judicial conduct in this matter raises issues under Rule 61, Canon 2 of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, requiring impartiality and avoidance of impropriety.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Appellant filed civil claims in Cook County Law Division under Case No. 2024-L-002166, alleging harassment, defamation, economic interference, and related damages. Default judgment proceedings were pending.
On September 3, 2025, Appellant submitted a Motion for Rehearing in the Appellate Court, First District. The motion was denied the very same day without briefing, deliberation, or apparent consideration.
This rapid disposition undermines the principle that litigants are entitled to meaningful review, particularly in matters involving fundamental rights and allegations of long-term harassment and misconduct.
Appellant now seeks discretionary review by the Illinois Supreme Court to ensure adherence to due process, equal protection, and judicial integrity.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
Constitutional Questions of Great Importance – Whether same-day denials of rehearing comport with the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
Conflict with Precedent – Evitts v. Lucey, Griffin v. Illinois, and Illinois cases emphasize meaningful appellate review, not perfunctory denial.
Public Confidence in Judiciary – Appearance of impartiality is critical. Same-day denials erode trust in appellate procedures. See Offutt v. United States.
Unresolved Statewide Question – No clear Illinois precedent exists on whether rehearing petitions must receive deliberative review. Clarification is required.
ARGUMENT
I. SAME-DAY DENIAL VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION.
The Fourteenth Amendment and Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2 guarantee fairness in judicial proceedings. By denying Appellant’s motion within hours of filing, the Appellate Court effectively deprived Appellant of a genuine opportunity for consideration. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985).
II. RULE 367 REQUIRES MEANINGFUL REVIEW, NOT PERFUNCTORY DENIAL.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 367(a) contemplates petitions for rehearing as an opportunity for correction of errors. A same-day denial suggests no meaningful review occurred, conflicting with the rule’s intent.
III. THE APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE DEMANDS THIS COURT’S INTERVENTION.
In Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954), the Court held that justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. When litigants perceive bias or pre-judgment, public confidence is undermined.
IV. THIS CASE PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT STATEWIDE ISSUE.
This Court has emphasized the need for reasoned decisions to preserve judicial integrity. People v. Salem, 2016 IL 118693. The Court should clarify whether Illinois appellate procedure permits same-day denials without substantive review.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:
Grant this Petition for Leave to Appeal under Rule 315;
Accept jurisdiction to review the Appellate Court’s summary denial; and
Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
