Background
Savian J. Bridges, a maintenance worker at Sam’s Club from April 2018 until his termination on December 21, 2019, filed a complaint in November 2021 asserting claims under the Illinois Human Rights Act for racial discrimination, age discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation, along with common law claims for wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He alleged that newly hired supervisors subjected him to harassment and false written warnings beginning in October 2019, that he repeatedly complained to Human Resources which ignored him, and that he was branded a “troublemaker” and subjected to reduced hours and shifts in retaliation before his pretextual termination.
After his attorney withdrew in October 2022, Bridges continued pro se and filed multiple amended complaints through 2023. The circuit court dismissed his complaint with prejudice in January 2024 for failing to state a claim. Bridges filed three motions to vacate the dismissal, all denied, and thereafter filed an untimely notice of appeal, which this court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on October 18, 2024.
More than one year after the initial dismissal, on October 9, 2025, Bridges filed a section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment, claiming newly discovered evidence including that Sam’s Club had enrolled him in a corporate health insurance policy without consent and that certain court filings appeared in the docket with altered content and missing exhibits.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the relief petition on two independent grounds. First, the petition was untimely. Section 2-1401 petitions must be filed with due diligence, and merely filing within the two-year statute of limitations does not satisfy this requirement. Bridges waited nearly twenty-one months after the initial dismissal and nearly one year after his first appeal was dismissed to file the petition, offering no explanation for the delay. The court found this violated due diligence requirements, citing precedent showing that considerably shorter delays—ranging from three months to fourteen months—had been found insufficient.
Second, the petition was not properly verified as required by section 2-1401 and Illinois Code section 1-109. Section 2-1401 requires that a petition be supported by sworn allegations verified by the party with personal knowledge, either by verified petition or attached affidavit. Bridges’s petition concluded only with his signature and contact information, containing no certification language, no statement that the facts were true and correct, and no invocation of penalties of perjury as required by section 1-109. The petition contained no attached affidavit. The court found the petition was therefore defective on its face, and Bridges’s later assertion in his reply brief that the petition contained proper verification was refuted by the petition itself.
Key Takeaways
- Section 2-1401 petitions for relief from judgment must be filed with demonstrated due diligence; the two-year statute of limitations is an outer boundary, not a safe harbor, and petitioners must explain any delay beyond a few months.
- Strict compliance with verification requirements under section 1-109 is mandatory; a signature alone is insufficient—petitions must either contain certification language invoking penalties of perjury or be supported by an attached affidavit.
- Procedural defects like untimeliness and improper verification are independent, sufficient grounds to deny relief without reaching the merits of the underlying claims.
- Self-represented litigants are not excused from procedural requirements, and courts will not relax formal compliance based on perceived substantive merit or hardship.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces two critical lessons for Illinois litigants seeking post-judgment relief. First, delay in filing section 2-1401 petitions is fatal—the court will not excuse extended delays even when technically within the statute of limitations, and a delay of twenty-one months with no explanation falls far short of the “expeditious” filing required by case law. Second, procedural compliance is non-negotiable; a litigant must strictly follow verification requirements with proper certification language or an affidavit, and casual signatures will not suffice.
For self-represented litigants in particular, this case demonstrates that courts will not relax formal procedural requirements based on perceived inequities or merit of underlying claims. While Bridges’s original discrimination allegations were substantive, the circuit court and appellate court were able to dispose of his relief petition entirely on procedural grounds without ever addressing whether his new evidence of alleged insurance fraud or docket irregularities had any merit. The takeaway is clear: procedural formality must be scrupulously observed, or the entire relief petition will be forfeited.