What the Record Establishes

  • The complaint is verified under section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure and states the two envelope numbers, the two rejection comments, and the two clerk responses of August 14, 2026.
  • It quotes Standard No. 22 of the published Reviewing Courts Electronic Filing Rejection Standards, which directs the clerk to insert the specific reason for rejection and how to correct it.
  • It demands an administrative compliance audit, written corrective guidance to reviewing-court clerks, an electronic-records preservation directive, and a written response by August 21, 2026.
  • It is copied to both district clerks and to both OSAD district offices.

What They Have Not Produced

  • Any written response from the AOIC.
  • Confirmation that the preservation directive reached JMIS and Tyler Technologies, and that the native logs for both envelopes are quarantined.
  • Corrective guidance stating whether clerk personnel may reject filings on representation status without a judicial order.

The Second District’s intake rule cannot be appealed, because a rejected filing never reaches a judge. That is the trap, and it is why this complaint went to the administrative body that supervises electronic filing statewide instead of to a court.

The narrowest possible framing, deliberately

The complaint asks the AOIC to do four things, and every one of them is an ordinary exercise of its existing administrative authority: audit Second District rejection practice for compliance with Rule 9(h); issue written guidance confirming whether clerk personnel may reject filings based on representation status absent a judicial order; direct JMIS and Tyler Technologies to quarantine and preserve the native audit logs, transaction histories, rejection-event configuration metadata, and reviewer timestamps for both envelopes; and respond in writing by August 21, 2026.

It requests no finding against any employee, no discipline, and no relief in any case. That is what makes it grantable.

The two exhibits that do the work

Exhibit A is the Second District Clerk’s written statement that only counsel may make requests of the court or his office. Exhibit B is the First District Chief Deputy Clerk’s written correction stating that an identical rejection “was done in error” and that the litigant “currently ha[s] the right to file into [his] case pro-se.” Exhibit C is the eFileIL rejection notice itself.

Both clerk writings are dated August 14, 2026. Both concern the same litigant. They cannot both state the correct statewide rule, and the office that can say which one does is the office that received this complaint.

Why the preservation demand is the part with teeth

Audit logs, routing histories, reviewer timestamps, and rejection-event configuration files are ordinary system records with ordinary retention cycles. Once the hold is on the file, the question of what those logs say stops being speculative and becomes a matter of production. The same records are the subject of Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the federal habeas discovery motion — which is the second place they have now been demanded, and the one with subpoena power behind it.