Thomas Wilson v. Warren County, Illinois
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13116
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Wilson and Hanson, former business partners, disputed ownership of real and personal property; a Warren County notice about cleanup was mistakenly sent to Hanson.
- Hanson, his lawyer Johnson, and Reiners photographed and later removed items from Wilson’s property; Wilson has documented psychological disabilities and suffered panic attacks during these events.
- Wilson’s friend called State’s Attorney Algren expressing concern; Algren said removal would require a court order and advised contacting the sheriff if the private parties returned.
- Johnson sought a state court order but did not obtain one; on returning to remove property Johnson presented papers to Deputy Carithers and told him he had legal authority to remove items.
- Carithers called Algren, received reassurance that the private parties were within their rights if they had the proper papers, and stood by while items were removed; plaintiffs allege property of both Wilson and Brown was taken.
- Procedurally: district court dismissed Wilson’s FHA claim, granted summary judgment for all defendants on § 1983 claims, and declined supplemental state-law claims; plaintiffs appealed and the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private defendants violated the FHA (§ 3604/§ 3617) by exploiting Wilson’s disability to prevent protest | Wilson: defendants intentionally triggered his disability to interfere with his housing rights | Defendants: removal motivated by property dispute, not disability | Dismissed for failure to plausibly allege disability-motivated conduct |
| Whether private defendants acted under color of state law for § 1983 | Wilson: private actors conspired with state actors to deprive rights | Defendants: no meeting of the minds; any misrepresentation was unilateral | Summary judgment for defendants; no evidence of concerted action |
| Whether public defendants (Algren, Carithers, sheriff) are liable under § 1983 for participation or deliberate indifference | Plaintiffs: public officials knew or recklessly disregarded unlawfulness and failed to protect (state-created danger) | Public defendants: acted, at most, negligently based on misrepresentations; no conscious agreement | Summary judgment for public defendants; no personal culpability or conscience-shocking conduct |
| Whether Monell liability attaches to county/officials | Plaintiffs: municipal policy or custom caused deprivation | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation to predicate Monell claim | Monell claims fail because no underlying constitutional violation was established |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561 (7th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of dismissal)
- Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir.) (FHA requires showing defendant acted because of disability)
- Carman v. Tinkes, 762 F.3d 565 (7th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Armato v. Grounds, 766 F.3d 713 (7th Cir.) (elements for § 1983 claim)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (state action and deprivation principles)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (meeting-of-minds requirement for private actor liability)
- Hanania v. Loren-Maltese, 212 F.3d 353 (7th Cir.) (concerted effort/joint action standard)
- Cunningham v. Southlake Ctr. for Mental Health, Inc., 924 F.2d 106 (7th Cir.) (private actor cannot unilaterally convert state actor’s lawful conduct into unconstitutional act)
- Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78 (2d Cir.) (false accusation to state actor insufficient for joint-action liability)
- Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu, 335 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.) (no liability absent proof state actor knew accusations were false)
- Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555 (7th Cir.) (personal responsibility standard for § 1983)
- Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir.) (knowledge or deliberate indifference required for supervisory liability)
- Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 805 (7th Cir.) (active participation requirement for seizure-based Fourth Amendment claims)
- King ex rel. King v. E. St. Louis Sch. Dist. 189, 496 F.3d 812 (7th Cir.) (state-created danger test)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (no affirmative duty to protect from private harms absent special circumstances)
- Jackson v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. 204, 653 F.3d 647 (7th Cir.) (conscience-shocking standard)
- Sallenger v. City of Springfield, 630 F.3d 499 (7th Cir.) (Monell liability requires underlying constitutional violation)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of NYC, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability framework)