Stewart et al v. Waukegan Housing Authority et al
642 F.Supp.3d 743
N.D. Ill.2022Background
- Plaintiffs are a certified class of Poe Manor public-housing tenants who lived there between Jan. 1, 2011 and Apr. 22, 2019 and allege a prolonged bedbug infestation.
- Leases used HUD standard language (admitted by defendants) obligating management to keep premises, development and common areas "decent, safe and sanitary" and to follow HUD/building codes.
- HUD/CDC/EPA issued guidance recommending integrated pest management (IPM), prompt inspections (including cloverleaf inspections of adjacent units), tenant communication, and early intervention for multifamily bedbug control.
- WHA retained pest firms (Smithereen, then Orkin), spent roughly $143,000 from 2011–2017 on inspections/treatments/education, treated most units at various times, and held tenant education activities; parties dispute thoroughness and effectiveness.
- Plaintiffs point to delays, inconsistent buildingwide inspections, instances of denied or suppressed tenant reports, and continued infestation-related harms (sleep loss, furniture loss, moves); defendants stress professional remediation efforts and relatively low reported monthly infestation rates.
- Procedural posture: defendants moved for summary judgment. Court grants summary judgment on §1983 (substantive due process) and unjust enrichment; denies summary judgment on class breach-of-contract claim based on the lease provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| State-created danger — affirmative act | WHA's delays, stopping inspections/posters and suppressing reports increased tenants' exposure and converted a potential problem into an actual danger | WHA's actions were remedial or omissions; no evidence WHA affirmatively made infestation worse | Plaintiffs did not identify an affirmative act that increased danger; §1983 claim fails on this element |
| State-created danger — conscience-shocking / recklessness | WHA acted with reckless indifference by ignoring HUD best practices, deceiving tenants, and under-resourcing eradication | WHA hired pros, conducted many treatments/inspections, spent significant funds — at worst negligent or misguided, not deliberately indifferent | Record supports negligence/gross negligence at best; not conscience-shocking — no substantive due process violation |
| Qualified immunity for §1983 claim | Tenants had a clearly established due-process interest in safe public housing and protection from reckless endangerment by housing authority | No controlling precedent put public-housing officials on notice; analogous authority (prison cases) is inapposite | Right not clearly established under controlling precedent; officials entitled to qualified immunity |
| Breach of contract / unjust enrichment | Lease Section 9 (management's obligations) required safe, sanitary premises; WHA breached classwide and was unjustly enriched by collecting rent during infestation | No complete authenticated lease copies; WHA substantially complied by procuring pest services; unjust enrichment barred because contract governs | Court infers enforceable leases and finds material factual disputes on breach — class may proceed on breach of contract; unjust enrichment claim dismissed as duplicative of contract claim |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (Due Process Clause does not impose affirmative duty to protect from private harms absent special circumstances)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) ("shocks the conscience" standard for due-process executive-action claims)
- Slade v. Bd. of Sch. Directors of City of Milwaukee, 702 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2012) (recklessness defined as knowledge of serious risk plus failure to avert when easily averted; negligence insufficient)
- Sandage v. Bd. of Com’rs of Vanderburgh Cty., 548 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2008) (clarifies that state must do something to turn potential danger into an actual one for state-created-danger theory)
- Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights, 782 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2015) (reaffirms requirement that state action must increase danger rather than merely omit protection)
- Jackson v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. 204, 653 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2011) (poor decisions or negligence do not rise to conscience-shocking conduct)
- Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, 600 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2010) (qualified immunity framework and burden to show right was clearly established)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (existing precedent must place constitutional question beyond debate to overcome qualified immunity)