T. S. v. County of Cook, 67 F.4th 884

Background

In 2015 Twentieth Century Fox filmed scenes for the TV show Empire at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center after Superintendent Leonard Dixon approved and coordinated the shoot.
The Center altered operations during filming (reassigning detainees among pods, shifting exercise and schooling locations, modifying visitation, and cancelling some activities).
Three detainees (T.S., Q.B., H.C.) filed a putative class action seeking damages, alleging the filming accommodations worsened confinement conditions and asserting, among other claims, a state-law breach of fiduciary duty against Dixon in his personal capacity.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Chief Judge and Fox defendants, granted Dixon qualified immunity on federal claims, but denied Dixon sovereign immunity for the state-law breach claim, relying on an "officer suit" exception.
Dixon obtained interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); the Seventh Circuit held Dixon acted within delegated state authority and that the breach claim is effectively one against the State and barred by Illinois sovereign immunity, reversed the denial of summary judgment, and ordered dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dixon is a state actor for the Empire-related decisions	Dixon is a Cook County employee (county pays his salary) and not a state actor	Dixon acted under authority delegated by the Cook County Chief Judge (a state official) and had final decision-making authority for filming	Dixon was a state actor because he acted under the Chief Judge's delegated state authority (state ultimately reimburses salary)
Whether Illinois sovereign immunity bars the personal-capacity damages claim	The breach duty arises from caretaker relationship independent of state employment, so immunity does not bar the suit	Any duty and actions arose solely from Dixon's role as superintendent (state employment), so the claim is effectively against the State	The duty, scope, and functions arose from state employment; the claim is one against the State and barred by the State Lawsuit Immunity Act
Whether the "officer suit" exception permits damages suits for alleged statutory/constitutional violations	Murphy supports applying the officer-suit exception to permit suits where officials violated statutory/constitutional law	Illinois precedent (Parmar/Leetaru) confines the officer-suit exception to injunctive relief against ongoing unlawful official conduct and does not authorize damages suits	The officer-suit exception does not apply to a damages action; the district court erred in relying on Murphy without applying the Healy factors
Disposition of the breach-of-fiduciary claim	N/A	Dixon entitled to sovereign immunity; dismissal is required	Reversed district court denial of summary judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the remaining state-law claim

Key Cases Cited

Murphy v. Smith, 844 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2016) (Seventh Circuit discussion of officer-suit principle in personal-capacity suits)
Leetaru v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 32 N.E.3d 583 (Ill. 2015) (Illinois law on when suits against officials are treated as suits against the State)
Parmar v. Madigan, 106 N.E.3d 1004 (Ill. 2018) (holds officer-suit exception does not cover damages claims for past wrongs)
Healy v. Vaupel, 549 N.E.2d 1240 (Ill. 1990) (three-factor test for whether a suit against an employee is essentially a suit against the State)
Sass v. Kramer, 381 N.E.2d 975 (Ill. 1978) (substance-over-form: cannot evade sovereign immunity by naming state agents)
Currie v. Lao, 592 N.E.2d 977 (Ill. 1992) (claims that would control State actions or impose liability are treated as suits against the State)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (official-capacity suits are suits against the State)
Jinkins v. Lee, 807 N.E.2d 411 (Ill. 2004) (examples where duties arise independent of state employment, e.g., doctor-patient relationship)