United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT BLAKEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Mark Hyzy, proceeding pro se, sues Defendant Tracy
Baker, a Senior Rehabilitation Counselor at the Illinois
Department of Human Services (DHS), alleging that she: (1)
falsified a report explaining why she denied him home
services; and (2) delayed producing his case file when he
appealed the denial. Defendant moves to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims, , but fails to advise this Court
as to the specific basis, under Fed R. Civ. P. 12, for her
motion. See generally   .
Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to “state[ ] a
claim, ” and suffered no “legally-cognizable
injury, ” this Court infers that Defendant's moves
pursuant to both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See,
e.g.,  at 1, 6, 9. Further, a motion challenging
subject-matter jurisdiction may be made at any time, even on
a court's own motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3); Jakupovic v. Curran, 850 F.3d 898, 902
(7th Cir. 2017). For the reasons explained below, this Court
grants Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and declines to consider the
merits of Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
Division of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) within DHS
administers the Home Services Program (HSP).  ¶ 11.
HSP serves as a Medicaid Waiver Program designed to
“prevent the unnecessary institutionalization of
individuals who may instead be satisfactorily maintained at
home at a lesser cost to the State.” Id.;
see also 20 ILCS 2405/3; 89 Ill. Admin. Code §
676.10. Individuals may appeal eligibility determinations.
 ¶ 12; 89 Ill. Admin. Code § 510.20(c).
individual chooses to appeal, he or she maintains the right
to request and review the relevant case file prior to the
hearing.  ¶ 16; 89 Ill. Admin. Code §
510.40(e)(1). Further, at least three business days prior to
the hearing, the appealing individual and the DHS-DORS staff
person who took the appealed action “must provide each
other and the Impartial Hearing Officer with a list of
witnesses, copies of documents not in the possession of the
other party, and a summary of the evidence that they plan to
present at the hearing.”  ¶ 17; 89 Ill. Admin.
Code § 510.105(d). The appeal hearing then proceeds
similar to a court trial, with opening statements,
presentation of evidence and cross-examination, and closing
arguments.  ¶ 19; 89 Ill. Admin. Code §
Plaintiff's DORS Application
submitted a pre-application for HSP to DORS on October 22,
2014.  ¶ 21. On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff received
a telephone call from DORS employee Latoya Warren-Barlow,
requesting a copy of his driver's license as part of the
application process. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff does
not state whether he ever complied with this request. See
years later, on October 31, 2016, Plaintiff received a notice
signed by Defendant denying his HSP eligibility because he
could not be reached to continue the application process.
Id. ¶ 24. According to Plaintiff, aside from
Warren-Barlow's 2014 telephone call, he received no other
telephone calls or letters from DORS regarding his
application until October 31, 2016. Id. ¶ 23.
On November 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the HSP
eligibility denial with the DHS Bureau of Hearings, via
e-mail. Id. ¶ 25.
Plaintiff's Appeal Process
Plaintiff's Case File
November 2, 2016, Plaintiff mailed Defendant a letter
requesting a copy of his DORS HSP case file. Id.
¶ 26. Two days later, on November 4, Defendant
telephoned Plaintiff's home and left a voicemail stating
that: (1) she received Plaintiff's file request; (2) the
case file contained only what Plaintiff had previously mailed
to DORS; and (3) she wanted to schedule an in-home-assessment
to determine HSP eligibility. Id. ¶ 28. On
November 7, 2016, Plaintiff called Defendant and left a
voicemail “advising [Defendant] in summary that he was
declining his HSP in-home interview, but that he still needed
a copy of his case file.” Id. ¶ 29.
subsequently continued his appeal. On November 10, 2016,
Defendant called Plaintiff to advise him that he would have
to file a release form to receive a copy of his case record;
Defendant e-mailed Plaintiff the form later that day.
Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff's hearing took place on
December 15, 2016. Id. ¶ 33. Four days after
the hearing-on December 19-Defendant e-mailed Plaintiff his
authorization form back, requesting that he complete the
“Dates of Service” fields on Page 2 of the
authorization form so that she could release the documents to