Derfus v. City of Chicago
1:13-cv-07298
N.D. Ill.Apr 6, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs Duane Derfus and Steven Petkiewicz are subject to Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requirements to register with the Chicago Police Department and to provide ID and proof of residence; SORA also provides for a fee waiver if indigent.
- Derfus attempted multiple times to register in late Sept.–Oct. 2013; initially turned away for planning a temporary trip to Wisconsin, then for lacking state ID showing his shelter address, then told the shelter address was within a prohibited zone; he ultimately was registered as lacking a fixed residence on October 18, 2013 and thereafter complied.
- Petkiewicz was released in Dec. 2012, obtained state ID listing the shelter address, and was registered at that address in Dec. 2012, March and June 2013; in Sept. 2013 he was told to vacate that address due to proximity to a school and later was registered as lacking a fixed residence on October 18, 2013.
- Plaintiffs asserted § 1983 due process claims and a SORA-related statutory claim, alleging the City refused to register them (or others) as persons without a fixed residence or temporary domicile.
- The City moved for summary judgment; the Court analyzed whether plaintiffs were denied a protected interest and whether the alleged denial stemmed from a City policy or widespread practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were denied a SORA-based right to register as lacking a fixed residence/temporary domicile | Plaintiffs say CPD refused to register them (or delayed/refused) in practice | City says plaintiffs either were properly told to delay, lacked required ID/address evidence, or were not eligible because they had a fixed residence | Court: No triable issue that City denied plaintiffs that registration right given record (no timely attempts or eligibility) |
| Whether City had a Monell policy/practice causing the alleged deprivation | Plaintiffs point to low numbers of "no fixed residence" registrations in some periods and several refusals to register "homeless" offenders | City says evidence is insufficient to show an official policy or widespread practice of refusal; "homeless" differs from SORA status | Court: Evidence insufficient to show a policy or widespread practice; Monell claim fails |
| Whether denial violated SORA (statutory claim) | Plaintiffs claim City’s refusal violated SORA registration requirements | City argues compliance with SORA and/or lack of refusal as alleged | Court: Disposes of SORA claim as derivative of the lack of factual showing of denial; dismissed with summary judgment for City |
| Whether procedural due process remedies were required | Plaintiffs assert deprivation without constitutionally adequate process | City contends no deprivation occurred and no municipal policy caused one | Court: No deprivation shown and no policy shown; due process claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard governs evaluation of evidence)
- Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Ill., Inc., 209 F.3d 687 (Seventh Circuit on viewing evidence and inferences at summary judgment)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (local government liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or widespread practice)
- Gustafson v. Jones, 117 F.3d 1015 (Seventh Circuit discussing elements of § 1983 due process claims)
- Wragg v. Village of Thornton, 604 F.3d 464 (policy/widespread practice standard for Monell liability)
- People v. Peterson, 935 N.E.2d 1123 (Illinois appellate court explaining SORA definitions and that ordinary "homeless" differs from SORA’s "fixed residence")