6 F. Supp. 3d 779
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are residents (and applicants) of CHA‑sponsored mixed‑income development Oakwood Shores, developed and managed by The Community Builders, Inc. (TCB).
- Oakwood Shores tenants are required by lease to submit to annual, suspicionless drug testing as a condition of occupancy; refusal can lead to eviction.
- Named plaintiffs include DeAnn and Jessica Stubenfield (refused testing; eviction later dismissed), Sharon Thompson (submits annually) and her disabled adult son Roy Thompson Jr. (tested in 2006 but not since); Deborah Thigpen (tested and once disclosed prescriptions to avoid a false positive).
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief abolishing the drug‑testing requirement as an unreasonable suspicionless search (Fourth Amendment, Illinois Constitution, Housing Act) and damages for a class under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Defendants (CHA and TCB) moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court granted dismissal only as to Roy Thompson Jr. and denied dismissal as to the remaining claims to permit discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Timeliness for Roy Thompson Jr. | Roy remains listed on a lease containing the drug‑test requirement and thus has standing and a live claim | Roy hasn’t been tested since 2006; CHA/TCB say he lacks standing now and his §1983 claim is time‑barred | Dismissed: Roy’s claim is untimely and speculative because he was not subjected to testing since 2006 and defendants’ counsel represented he won’t be tested now |
| State Action (Fourth Amendment) | CHA funded/owned the units, developed Oakwood Shores with TCB, approves leases, and facilitates/authorizes testing, creating state action | TCB is a private manager; plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory and fail to show CHA coerced or significantly encouraged the specific policy | Denied dismissal: factual disputes about CHA’s role survive pleading; complaint permits inference of state action and merits discovery |
| Voluntariness/Consent to Testing | Consent was coerced because refusal could cause eviction; therefore consent may be involuntary | Tenants consented by choosing to live there; consent makes the search constitutionally permissible | Denied dismissal: allegations that testing is a condition of occupancy raising coercion are sufficient at pleading stage to question voluntariness |
| Reasonableness of the Search & Housing Act Claim | Warrantless, suspicionless urine testing is a significant intrusion; Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §1437d(i)(2)) confers enforceable rights via §1983 to challenge unreasonable lease terms | Even if CHA involved, tests are minimally intrusive; Housing Act provisions don’t create individual §1983 rights | Denied dismissal: presumed unreasonable at pleading stage absent special need showing; court finds §1437d(i)(2) plausibly confers a right enforceable under §1983 (relies on persuasive precedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent judged by totality of circumstances)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (statutory right must be unambiguously conferred to be enforceable under §1983)
- Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (1987) (public housing provisions can create enforceable rights in some circumstances)
- Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) (government must show a special need to justify suspicionless drug testing)
- Valance v. Wisel, 110 F.3d 1269 (7th Cir. 1997) (presumption of unreasonableness for warrantless searches and consent burdens)
- Davis v. City of New York, 902 F. Supp. 2d 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (section 1437d(i)(2) gives tenants a right to leases free from unreasonable terms enforceable under §1983)