Leo Burroughs, Jr., Cross-Appellees v. Carla Hills, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cross-Appellants

FLAUM, Before POSNER and Circuit NICHOLS,* Judges, and Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM. opinion is unanimously The court of the Judge that the decision of District Moran summary judgment dismissing peti- on tion, ought affirmed, judgment and is to that entered effect. is The court also unanimously opinion deci- sion denying same district judge, prevailing parties, ought costs to the to be reversed, judgment and is entered The judges panel effect. of this differ and, in stating somewhat their reasons therefore, the sepa- views of each rately appended. However, Judge Posner joins Judge opinion except Nichols’ Part B, except IV part, may opinion therefore be taken as the court. Affirmed in No. 83-1604 and re- in No. versed 83-2289.

NICHOLS, Judge. Senior Circuit This action brought was in the Northern by eight District Illinois individuals and voluntary community organization, former Devel- Urban (HUD) opment Hills, Secretary Carla vari- regional officials, ous and local HUD Rist, Management Seward Area Broker. longer Hills is no Secretary, but successors been formally par- substituted as ties. Plaintiffs originally sought injunctive relief now seek money damages only, but injury on account of they allege they -suf- nearby fered as residents because defend- ants allowed certain Chicago residential acquired property foreclosure be va- cant hazard to safety héalth and Block, McCarthy, Thomas J. community Jenner & acquisition, residents from No- Ill., Chicago, plaintiffs-appellants, through disposal, July 19, vember cross-appellees. contrary law, law, all to Federal state * Nichols, Jr., Philip sitting by designation. Honorable of the United Circuit, Appeals Court Federal States for the case, occurring far as ordinance, was so were in Mr. Rist’s what municipal complaints. plaintiffs’ was ear- A motion to dismiss aware his contract. denied, holding passed over

ly originally property considered the assigned as error because here $40,000, market value of less had a fair relief issue injunctive party’s appeal. $17,389, repairs making it avail- needed at since the dis- mooted been considered has $22,600. spent at Some $285 able shortly after the suit posal of the pursuant Mr. Rist’s invoic- maintenance filed. was July paid all the taxes. On es. HUD 10, 1983, Judge District March 8 and On city property sold the HUD Moran, having him cross-motions before could, $1, applicable pro- which under stipula a fact summary judgment and only appraised gram, done if the value be granted de signed by parties, all the tion $5,000. Chicago conveyed it to was peti motion and dismissed fendant’s the South Shore Senior Citizens Associa- tion, defendants their costs. denied the tion, stipulated proceeding which was to be Hills, (N.D. F.Supp. 1007 Burroughs $40,000, repairs with estimated cost over Ill.1983). appeal followed and there This by by grant.” to be financed HUD “block only. relating to costs cross-appeal stipulated precipi- Thus the facts indicate a during decline in market value tate I period ownership, of HUD and we assume

Facts occurred, this with an increase in the repairs needed. a some- stipulated represent facts unhappy situation from the Federal what eight Plaintiffs are individuals who resid- point The case is said taxpayer’s of view. ed tenants within 500 feet this dere- others, representative of and a test. to be Club, property, plus lict the Five Block three-story question is a property in organization pur- voluntary formed for the at 7228 S. Coles Ave- residential structure pose combating neighborhood blight. Chicago. Becoming titleholder nue interest of the individual was foreclosure, building HUD allowed safety their concern for the health and no unoccupied unguarded, with They themselves and their families. feared duty, unfenced. on Glass watchman drug activity increased crime and because rats, mice, throughout, was broken building likely was “a hideout for crimi- present, founda- and insects were rodents passed gangs.” They routinely nals and cracked, exterior walls needed were tions immediate, building area and saw the unstable, were exterior tuckpointing, floors day. each None of claim to own them unsecured, steps the front doors were property in neighborhood. real disrepair, debris porch were was back dwelling We note that within 500 feet of building, including around the scattered offending such an a fact that structure is refuse, rubble, and lumber material special law, confers status under Illinois down vandals” for whom the “knocked whether one is If owner or tenant. his building frequent target.” “awas Mr. Rist person “substantially af- management contract “area broker” violation, alleged fected” in addition (AMB) reported inspected seven times and remedies, may to other injunc- he sue for building secured, windows tion, having “prove without any special boarded, cut, grass and the free lot unique damage proper- to himself or his (Evidently parties mean to im- debris. ty alleged Chapter from the violation.” reported falsely.) Rist ply that Mr. Mr. paragraph 11-13-15 of Illinois Revised management had 150-200 Rist Statutes, as amended and effect when buildings and so far as government-owned complaint was filed. only actually is the defendant who appears property, but the Burroughs complained official defend- Plaintiff first saw independent 19, 1975, knowing had means of ants defendant Waner on March April presented argue any why on 2 the Five Block Club reason this is erroneous. This, however, petitions signed by preclude 107 mem- does not Waner considera- bers, oddly tion of local enough opera- one of whom was de- law because HUD tions, out, point as we will urged fendant Rist. At time Federal law buyer requires property management reha- immediate sale to who would conformi- law, They frequently ty to local bilitate. communicated af- thus a breach of state Rist, occurs, may ipso stipulated terwards to Mr. but it law be a breach of facto law, the official defendants obtained no duties under Federal and it not be rely pendent more information as to the bad condition of for the court to building jurisdiction. properties until the suit was filed. The do not be- duties, stipulation properties, describes from come like some Federal en- perhaps expected exempt which to infer claves law. Merrill we from local HUD, to know. Mr. Rist Tenant Council v. duty it was their 638 F.2d 1086 (7th Cir.1981). party govern- was a to a contract with the perform, ment he was to as to Plaintiffs admit that the National Hous- properties title, acquired to which HUD § 12 U.S.C. 1701 and ff is the including inspection, various services and authority under which the United States taking necessary steps repairs when insured and then mortgage foreclosed the necessary. were found property, on the involved becoming owner stipulation The pro- record, closes with a curious and under which the Federal §§ vision that if the official defendants are 1713(k), defendants acted. 12 U.S.C. liable, they jointly severally are liable and 1710(g). They also admit that the act con- $1,000, in the amount of and if Rist is language tains no expressly authorizing liable, it is in the against amount of HUD, $350. suits the Secretary of silent, stipulation is subordinates, and we are not in- of her to enforce official or liability might formed what personal be asserted in liability executing for not companion cases, any, granted should what we powers in proper manner. The suggest here hold theory action, liabilities and what in its most basic form saywe stare decisis. treated as therefore, litigation rights is that as-

serted herein among are those which can be held to implied by have been legisla- II scheme, tive according to the standards Theory of the Action Ash, v. Cort stated U.S. 95 S.Ct. Defendant Hills and the other official (1975) 45 L.Ed.2d 26 or in proge- by plaintiffs defendants are held to be lia- ny of that case. capacities ble in their official under Federal Insofar as the suit against the defend- defendants, Hills, except law. The official ant officers their capacities, official it is are said to be liable individual parties understood and held capacities also under Mr. Federal law. judge, district that the Secretary may sue HUD, Rist is liable his contract with be sued her official capacity by 12 law, they and under state and local con- which, practical as a matter, tend. “Mortgage means Insurance Fund,” judge possibly The district government also dealt with other funds, pendent jurisdic what he considered to be may pay judgments be used to of United sovereign tion claims under the doctrine immunity that issues of and con- Gibbs, Mineworkers America 383 sent be sued are eliminated. Merrill HUD, supra 715, 726, 1130, 1139, 16 Tenant Council U.S. at 1091. (1966). pointed He out that But not of L.Ed.2d section 1702 does its own force on, injunctive private under the state law relied create cause of action. Shivers v. Landrieu, only provided (D.C.Cir. relief and he denied dam 674 F.2d 911 n. 21 ages ground. 1981). on that Plaintiffs do not It seem that so far as official concerned, naming duly advised of tax liabilities. It is there- funds plain plaintiffs can, do, suffices and officials fore as a defendant joined. been need not have buttress their Federal claims references of local law. breaches stipulations, pro- pleadings, the clear, make it how- of counsel nouncements III

ever, damages recoverable personal sought. are also from individual officials Statutes, Provisions, Regulatory theory. a tort Evident- Originally this is on Contract Provisions Relied On ly mulcting personal rather than placed Appendix These are A and are changes in official funds would make some given plaintiffs quote verbatim them in factors: application of the Cort v. Ash their brief. pro- to other beneficiaries of the detriment depletion gram by of available quoted The HUD Handbook is eliminated, on the other funds would be by plaintiffs relied on government as a hand, created a disincentive there would be regulation. appears on its face to be anyone accepting appointment as a HUD intended for internal use for the informa official. These differences between the guidance tion and of HUD Such officials. sought surprisingly two kinds of relief handbooks are usual in the Executive parties, little discussed and the dis- Branch of the United States Government. disregard possibili- trict seems to Uncertainty often exists whether a hand defendants, Hills, ty except official be, book is meant to or is inadvertently personally liable. be, independent made to legal source of theory liability Mr. Rist’s is neces- rights or claims the United States sarily a little different. He contracted to Government and its officials. See treat which, things do for HUD had he done problem ment of this in Fiorentino v. them, would have lessened or eliminated States, (Ct.C1.1979), United 607 F.2d 963 any plaintiffs. They pre- cert, detriment to the denied, 444 U.S. sumably third-party sue him as beneficiar- (1980). 62 L.Ed.2d 768 See also Litton ies under his contract. Merrill Tenant Systems, Whirlpool Cf. Corp., Inc. v. 728 F.2d HUD, supra Council v. at 1093. This 1423,1439 (Fed.Cir.1984), says of the controlling eliminate Cort v. asAsh author- Examining Manual Patent Pro Office case, ity in his but are to show that cedure, binding MPEP has no force “[t]he beneficiaries, they were intended contract us, but is entitled to notice so far as it is showing must have to make a that in interpretation reg an official of statutes or working effect he was for them. ulations with which it is not in conflict.” weight give That is the we the HUD Hand supposed pendent state law claims book here. Mr. Rist’s contract is on a really policy claims that government standard form for Area Bro ff, 12 U.S.C. 1701 and re- kers. quires that when HUD becomes owner of sovereign

real located within states, acting under the General Welfare IV specific clause and not under Federal con- Discussion grants power, stitutional HUD must con- A. principal appeal. codes, etc., to form construction of local just previous as the law but now foreclosed very conspicuous inability view of the mortgagors to plaintiffs had do. The existence of of the any grant- to cite statute policy dispute ing such a law is not and is them expressly right a to sue by quotes illustrated from HUD documents Federal courts on account of the kind of example, inadequate performance which need not be detailed. For by HUD officials required prepare Mr. Rist’s contract him stipulation, to described in the or their contractors, necessary local tax returns and see that HUD was is it for them to many other judges selves to the circuit who Congress granted impli- them show duty. this task in have undertaken line under a right to sue Cort v. Ash cation analysis. to make such They undertook fully, it To understand Cort v. Ash partly court showing to the district note that it where to case held, Judge Moran to sum- it. persuaded proponent implied action cause of carefully analy- briefly his reasoned marize lost, by vote of unanimous all the Justices. sis, duty that a breach of owed towards explain why The four standards that claim occurred, clearly but to en- these won, meaning might ant lost. Had he their damages by money it in his court force sepa to always be different. It is an error counter-productive be because would judges rate statements Justices or “ultimately pocket from the come would questions their context. The stated there meaning apparently beneficiary” (422 right to be the ones are summarized. Mortgage In- payment deplete 2087.) atU.S. 95 S.Ct. at provide Fund and it would surance First, plaintiff is the “one of class “some balm to undefined and some virtual- especial statute whose benefit the people undefinable class of for continu- ly [Emphasis original.] enacted?” ing housing” coexistence with substandard Second, legis- is there indication necessarily not even deter but future dere- intent, explicit lative implicit, either to officials; duty by lictions of theo- a remedy deny create such one? to again here ry being that funds would be Third, underly- consistent is it with the give aggrieved diverted balm individu- purposes legislative scheme bring housing rather used being als imply remedy? such a again toup standard. Here there seems to Finally, cause is the of action one tradi- unspoken assumption be the HUD tionally relegated to state law? only in defendants are sued their official Appellants make a valiant to show effort capacities required and will to make implied their entitlement to an Federal pockets. whole out of own cause of action under all four Cort Ash stipulation say does this and we factors, suggested it is that this court implies. fail to see where it says so all Rich, Corp. Indiana National “obligated” named pay defendants are (7th Cir.1983), F.2d treated sums group stated. The official Cort v. Ash factors as outmod- somewhat “jointly severally obligated.” If public ed. We cited Touche Ross & Co. Red- used, funds were to be it would have suff- 560, 575, ington, 442 U.S. 99 S.Ct. say iced that the “obligat- was (1979) establishing L.Ed.2d as Moreover, possible ed.” the class claim- equal weight, “factors were not of is open-ended. They ants not all that were but that inquiry, the central at which the class, they not certified as a but defined directed, first three factors were all persons themselves dwelling within 500 one of congressional intent.” referred We feet of the offending structure. This Advisors, also to Transamerica Mortgage category treated as a distinct under local Lewis, 11,18, Inc. v. 444 U.S. law, conferring standing to enforce local 246, (1979) 62 L.Ed.2d 146 antici- statutes as we have shown. pates Judge in allowing Moran implication Judge analysis places Moran’s him in the private remedies, of some denying en- but perceiving position one the occurrence of by money damages. forcement do not We legal wrong yet denying any remedy a cases, think Supreme they later Court if persons wronged. not, by This does really Ash, modify a Cort do so in man- itself, error, establish that he is it helpful appellants’ ner case. It cannot thoughtful invite analysis. does our be unfair to them to make a full Cort v. Though agree Judge we with Moran’s re- analysis, Ash whether or not their failure sult, we deem it to undertake on the second intent itself issue is analysis, own adding our Cort v. Ash our- decisive. We surmise that dissatisfac- cases, proper job. legisla- do a officials do not No the factors arises tion with the intermedi- history supply where is cited to as Touche Ross tive what the readily in applied them too courts have statutory language clearly supply. ate does not implied cause of action. of an favor any way say It is not in inconsistent to factor, v. Ash applying the first Cort Congress intended HUD officials to residing nonproperty owners ask if we management to local law in their conform offending structure feet of an within 500 location, property yet of foreclosed “especial persons for whose benefit vagaries did not intend the need not enacted.” Here we statute was implied of other local law to confer causes HUD, agency, Congress and the doubt that persons locality in that even of action Housing Act to be adminis- all wanted the might though no such cause have been way plaintiffs’ class tered in such a implied in other localities. avoidably harmed. others would not be factor, to the third As the remedies as- damage they might suffer from the underly- serted are not consistent' with abandoned, dilapidated, neighborhood of ing legislative scheme. The officials are government-owned structures vandalized expected promptly responsible to act guard- possible and so far as was foreseen situated, similarly businessmen would But, bearing in mind that the against. ed example, officers of a bank which has necessity pri- arises when a of foreclosure failed, already willy-nilly and that had to foreclose and mary program has finds itself object administration between fore- management the business of real estate disposal clearly to limit or closure and disposal. An invitation to Federal loss, government’s fiscal and re- avert the judges peer over the shoulders fund, possibly it plenish the insurance can management and interfere the details of special said the beneficiar- business, would not further the under- ies? lying purposes. We are not here concerned facilities, public-owned post such as factor, regards the there is no As second offices, management public in whose congressional intent to create indication of abiding lacking has an interest here. En- i.e., lawsuit, legal remedy, either in the by damages against forcement assessed of- statutory legislative history. text or in the individually, proposed, ficials as here expectation, plenty There is of evidence of management tend to make HUD reluctant proper job, keep- if the HUD officials do foreclose, they might and thus fail to premises repair, stopping vandal- ism, them, excluding drug given make the best use of the tools users and criminal instruments, gangs, public mortgage will benefit the fisc and the to limit and con- incidentally community. make a better government trol financial loss. are we Or are not enforcing Plaintiffs to visualize suit also members suit, right by the instant claim to 500-foot class HUD officials who They have none. are not contract claim- have to foreclose? failed special The idea that ants. Finally, the fourth v. Ash factor is Cort rights by membership virtue of in the class only one which is even neutral so far as persons dwelling of within 500 feet of the plaintiffs are concerned. The assessment structure, offending stems from state law damages against officials Federal for them access to state courts if giving nonperformance of official not duties is one category. appar- It is not at all normally relegated to state law. give special intended to ent that factors, together, The four taken all fail of that to members identifiable benefits support implication private of a rem- state, particular special in the group, one edy in the Federal courts under the hous- entry to the Federal courts to form lawsuit, ing legislation, any description. form or bring right where no such appear by stipu- That the HUD officials might to others who suffer inci- granted do) injury (as they things not to have or indirect elsewhere if HUD lation done dental done, true, brought by in a foreclosure suit HUD. irrele- ought to have they" However, duty primary duty to their it held that HUD’s main They their owe vant. Government, mortgagor, mortgagee, not the employer, the United States was to ample inspec- means at its employer negligent management has and that and that them, if it diligence That disposal to enforce tion not affirmative defenses. were them rights exercise its sees chooses to seems to accord with ours. conclusion thwarting purposes. its as Mr. his contract undertook Rist implied causes of ac- Efforts to enforce management perform duties as Housing Legisla- under the National tion that otherwise the de properties foreclosed Handbook, frequent- tion or the HUD officials would have had to fendant HUD appellate ly come under consideration contract, perform By themselves. his he courts, are: always failed. Cases and have was to render various services as set forth Akron, City M.B. Co. v. Guran appendix. nothing in the There is in the (6th Cir.1976) (Disappointed F.2d 201 — working he contract to show was enjoin of a HUD- suit to award bidder’s persons third-party outside as beneficiaries. alleged violation of subsidized contract duty protect His was to the fiscal interests v. Cort applies a HUD Handbook. Court government. appear Nor does it Ash factors persons and states that the v. Cort Ash factors out work more especial the statute for “whose benefit favorably against in their suit enacted” are those who inad- inhabit him, do as to the HUD officials. housing.) equate provi- The short of it is that are no there States, Falzarano v. United 607 F.2d express imply sions that an action (1st Cir.1979) (No Cort v. Ash im- — Federal courts based on the kind of nonfea- plied right of action accorded to tenants stipulated sance here. Since no such action low, mod- HUD-subsidized lie, lie, question is shown to if it did persons.) erate income what kind of relief would be available to Harris, City Rohnert Park v. ease, proved who have (9th Cir.1979) (Suit by city F.2d 1040 — injunction, declaratory judgment, parens patriae persons on behalf of in- damages, simply is an issue money jured enjoin developers HUD far reached. So as the duties of the Feder- developing regional shopping center as law, conformity al officials included to local part project. of a urban renewal Viola- this conclusion embraces those laws as well tion of various rules of Act al- as Federal law. leged. Cort v. Ash factors applied ad- pendent jurisdiction, As a matter of

versely city.) issue, separate discretion, as a and in his Landrieu, Shivers 674 F.2d the district again up also or took (D.C.Cir.1981) (Past present ten- — stipulated, of local law that breaches mortgage-insured property ants of HUD injunctive and held that local law relief v. Ash stan- right Cort have no only was allowed. Since such relief was no compliance dards to sue to enforce longer sought, summary he entered judg- regulations.) ment on the state claims as well. We do (D.C. Lynn, Jackson v. 506 F.2d 233 part understand that of his deci- Cir.1974) (No implied right of action — sion is appeal before us on this and there- insuring housing that HUD for fore no further consideration of it is called Housing Regula- not conform to did D.C. for. We affirm summary judgment tions, 221(d)(2) contrary to Section entered. Housing Act. This case decided before Ash.) Cort cross-appeal. The B. Winthrop Towers,

In United States v. (7th Cir.1980), 628 F.2d 1028 cross-appeal this court The official defendants legality respecting reviewed the of a HUD foreclosure the judge refusal of the district them, having right. act dignity award costs to decided This lent to the case and order he stage favor. his noted set the the forensic combat that case, “landmark,” present though not a did followed. It was made unethical for coun- public im- questions of interest and novel prosecute sel not the claim as he did. In were of limited portance, circumstances, these responsibility for (not indigent) were means stated to and causing judicial waste resources on an suing advantage pri- for commercial or not wholly case unmeritorious does not rest or gain. Lines, He cited Delta Air Inc. vate primarily upon plaintiffs even and their Cir.1982). Colbert, (7th F.2d the counsel. Here cause was failure of the grounds relieving These a loser judicial machinery operate as it in- was 54(d) “of is Fed.R.Civ.P. what tended to under the F.R.C.P. consequence losing, normal course” not themselves sufficient to avoid abuse APPENDIX A the rule. of discretion under Statutory Relevant Provisions dispose This conclusion suffices to any cross-appeal, and discussion whether § Housing The Act of 42 U.S.C. though tempting suit was is frivolous pertinent provides part: strictly It relevant. cannot be denied Congress hereby The declares that the legitimate grievance, had a general security welfare and of the Na- By or not a cause of action. living tion and health and standards commonly accepted lay public, belief of the people require housing production of its thinking grievance he such a has a one has development and community related suf- right to sue in con- Constitutional the most remedy ficient to housing the serious court, study of venient without too nice a shortage, the elimination of substandard jurisdiction jurisprudence and inadequate housing and other through If he selected tribunal. has chosen blighted the clearance of slums and ar- one, wrong aggrieved its is not be- eas, realization as soon as feasi- only cause he has to throw the case or out goal ble of the of a decent home and a proper it transfer court. Under- living suitable every environment for standably following this view lacks a family, contributing American thus among judges, but all must be aware its development redevelopment existence as a must or tide swim with communities and to the advancement of against. is What use made of the first wealth, growth, security of the opportunity afforded under the Rules of ____ Department Nation of Hous- get chosen court to rid of a misfiled Urban Development, any thus more importance case takes on departments other agencies many opportunity, realize. To this use having powers, Federal Government belong the case does not the court cho- functions, respect or duties with to hous- sen, tide, is speak, to swim with the so to ing, powers, shall exercise their func- whereas to labor on with the ease not. tions, and duties under this Here, the opportunity first was a motion law, consistently with the national hous- pleadings, defendants to dismiss on the ing policy declared this Act and in came before judge, another district manner will facilitate sustained Moran. Under date of October progress in attaining national hous- held that the motion was be- denied ing objective hereby established .... a cause cause of action was stated under Department and Urban (See Appendix 1441. text Development amended, 42 U.S.C. section). I,Vol. Record Item 27. § 1441a, provides: appears legal the denial was error as (a) petition did not state a cause of action the supply finds that jurisdiction the limited within of the Feder- the Nation’s is not increasing al courts—could not have if our rapidly enough decision to meet the national by any insured

property covered such proceed- prosecute such mortgage and Housing in the housing goal, established conclusion____ ings to the “realization as soon Act of of goal a decent home feasible of the of as (l) disposal Handling property; and of living environment for ev- and suitable Notwithstanding settlement claims. of family”. Congress The re- ery American any provisions relating of law housing goal and this national affirms acquisition, handling, disposal or of substantially it determines that can be property by real and other the United by the the next decade achieved within States, Secretary pow- shall also have twenty- of construction or rehabilitation er, protection for the of the interests of units, housing million six million of six Fund, pay the General Insurance out these for low and moderate income fami- of the General Insurance Fund all ex- lies. with, penses charges in connection and (b) Congress poli- further finds that The with, reconstruct, rent, complete, to deal designed to cies contribute renovate, modernize, insure, make con- housing goal achievement of the national management of, tracts or estab- have not directed sufficient attention and agencies manage- lish suitable for the preservation existing resources to the of, ment or sell for cash or credit or lease housing neighborhoods, and de- discretion, in any property acquired his housing terioration and abandonment section____ by him under this for the Nation’s lower income families decade, accelerated over and has the last Act, amended, Housing The National that this acceleration has contributed to § 1702, provides, pertinent part: in U.S.C. neighborhood disintegration par- and has powers The conferred this Act shall tially negated progress toward Secretary be exercised Housing achieving housing goal the national (hereinafter Development and Urban re- primarily through which has been made “Secretary”). ferred to as the In order housing new construction. carry provisions out the of this title (c) The declares that if the na- V, II, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and titles achieved, housing goal tional is to be XI, Secretary may establish such greater effort must be made to encour- agencies, accept and utilize such volun- age preservation existing housing services, tary uncompensated utilize neighborhoods through such meas- such Federal employees, officers and housing preservation, ures as moderate and, State, consent of the rehabilitation, improvements in hous- employees, State and local officers and maintenance, ing management and in appoint such other officers and conjunction provision with the em- ade- [and municipal ployees quate necessary____] services. Such an effort as he find concentrate, greater shall, should to a extent Secretary carrying out the past, in the has provisions II, III, of this title and1titles neighborhoods where deterioration is evi- V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI be autho- yet dent but has not become acute. rized, in capacity, his official to sue and any competent juris- be sued in court of National diction, § 1713, State or Federal. provides pertinent part: (k) Acquisition property by convey- §24, 11-31-1, amended, ch. Ill.Rev.Stat. ance or foreclosure. provides, pertinent part: (1) hereby acquire authorized either to corporate 11-31-1. The authorities any property, of and title to possession municipality may demolish, of each re- by mortgage insured under covered pair repair or cause the demolition or him, assigned this section and vol- dangerous buildings and unsafe extinguishment or un- untary conveyance indebtedness, (2) completed buildings and abandoned mortgage with- insti- proceedings territory such municipality tute foreclosure on the Relevant Property Portions the HUD ____ Disposition Handbook building may up or No be boarded enclosed. otherwise Paragraph Chapter of the HUD Municipal City Chicago, Code of provides, Handbook in pertinent part: § 39-13, part: provides, pertinent repair program b. shall include all Any person persons 39-13. or own- repairs necessary to create maximum ing, maintaining, operating, collecting appeal sales existing eliminate or for, having any legal equita- rents or or potential structural, mechanical and any open ble interest in vacant and build- addition, other deficiencies. ing, any uncompleted or abandoned repair program should include such building, any boarded-up or vacant build- which, upgrading type because ing any or enclosed otherwise vacant properties, location of the building duty must have a watchman on Director determines to upon premises any on which one of generate sales, or to stabilize or im- buildings such aforementioned is situated prove neighborhoods. In establish- every day continuously between the repair program, particularly ' hours of 4:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. inner-city, where properties core-area required watchman pro- Said under the involved, are important it is to be visions of this ordinance shall remain on salutary aware of the effect that will duty daily during required hours un- probably timely provi- result. The building occupied til such is either or repair sion of or substantial rehabili- ____ razed may tation preserva- be critical to the Municipal City Chicago, Code of the tion of blocks and neighbor- even § 99-4, provides, pertinent part: hoods older areas of our cities and vehicle, building, structure, 99-4. suburbs. Typically, No in older but still lot, receptacle, yard, neighborhoods, sound premises, part or the rehabilita- thereof, made, used, kept, shall be tion of one house main- on the block can tained, operated city use, or in the lead to in upgrading investment oth- keeping, maintaining, er houses on operating or shall the block. The result any nuisance, repair program be the occasion of respect or shall with dangerous deteriorating be to life or or detrimental substandard health. should be to create a structure in condition, compo- like-new all

Every building or structure construct- operable, nents major and with no or ed maintained in violation of the build- expense offing in the for several code, ing provisions of this or which is in years. major All repair work shall unsanitary condition, an inor an unsafe accomplished be in accordance with condition, dangerous or any or which in established contracting formal endangers manner the health safety or purchase procedures. order any person persons, or is hereby de- building clared to be a or part public therof which nuisance. Every ^{[*] [*]} ¡H sH # unsanitary by condition reason of the Repairs. Immediate Protective g. Ir- or being basement cellar covered with respective repairs of whether full water, stagnant pres- or reason of the delayed, immediate shall attention be gas, any ence of sewer reason of given repairs required to those portion building being of a infected with prevent undue deterioration being disease or unfit for human habita- eliminate hazardous conditions that tion, or which reason of dangerous public. unsanitary condition, is a source of sick- ness, Initial Cleanup and Maintenance. endangers public or which h. health, hereby public declared to be is essential unsightly condi- nuisance. tions promptly. be corrected Imme- management top quality

maintain AMB services. Where an is new diately upon taking possession the expend program, the CPO shall (AMB) Management Broker Area time, amount of either a sufficient office, AMB is not the local if an qualified personally or staff available, arrangements shall make member, training supervising have all rubbish removed and employees the AMB and his who thorough cleaning, premises given a engaged performing in the services cutting grass, weeding, including required under the contract. broker needed, trimming shrubbery if and In addi- i. Maintenance. Continued Relevant Portions Rist’s AMB Seward arrange- cleaning, tion to the initial Contract shall also made for contin- ments be Contract, 3, provides, The AMB Article maintenance, “housekeeping” ued pertinent part: lawns, shrubbery and such as care cleaning. FACILITIES, removal and broom snow ARTICLE MATERI- 3— ALS, Unoccupied properties main- must be LABOR AND SERVICES TO BE presentable condi- BY tained clean and FURNISHED THE CONTRACTOR: tion. compensation In consideration for as sti- pulated in this contract the Contractor 185, Paragraph Chapter 7 of the JHUD agrees perform in accordance with the provides, pertinent part: Handbook following requirements at no additional Repair Objectives. and Maintenance expense except Government (a) objective place a. The is to overall provided herein. properties in first-class condition to s}: s(; tfc appeal create maximum at the sales time, requisite d. SERVICES: The at- highest price in obtainable sales or- principals tention and effort of the and der to contribute to maintenance of a employees regularly engaged in the es- market; (b) firm real estate eliminate tablished business of the Contractor to potential default hazard attributable properly discharge obligations and physical deficiencies; (c) elimi- responsibilities of the as es- Contractor structural, nate all (including termite hereunder, including supervi- tablished infestation) mechanical and surface repair, oper- sion of all maintenance and which, eliminated, deficiencies if not ating activities. major repair would result in or re- placement expenditures by pur- Contract, The AMB provides, in Article chaser, upon or demands HUD under pertinent part: warranty the terms of the on the ARTICLE 4.—INITIAL SERVICES TO Contract, Sales Form 2384. BE BY THE PERFORMED CONTRAC- Paragraph Chapter- of the HUD TOR Handbook, provides pertinent part: perform The Contractor shall the follow- Supervision 80. Management Area ing stipulated initial services with his quality Brokers. order to obtain regular employees at no additional ex- basis, performance timely on a Government, pense to the responsible CPO shall be for assur- Informing d. promptly Government management that each area bro- concerning damage resulting all (AMB) ker understands what is ex- vandalism, fire, windstorm, and other him, pected of and that he is famil- causes at the outset and thereafter as iar with the acceptable standards of require. circumstances performance established the lo- Contract, The AMB provides:

cal office for all Article activities under his supervision. super- The CPO shall ARTICLE 5.—INITIAL SERVICES TO vise activities of each AMB to BE BY THE OBTAINED CONTRAC- necessary develop extent TOR

ey mortgage taken back in connection sale of such or other arrange shall su- The Contractor legal possession form of following pervise the initial services Secretary does all the terms and condi- not hold free and clear accordance with specifically herein tions Article and title property. to such imposed under Article 10. limitations provide pro- for the shall also Contractor repair actual or maintenance costs preservation proper- tection and of such project shall be reimbursable from funds However, this nature actions of ties. paid through Treasury, the U.S. or those shall limited to through Government direct of health hazards and prevention Treasury, appropriate. U.S. prevent security measures minimum Winterizing of all operating systems a. property by elements damage to the equipment, properties as to all va- byor vandalism. subsequently at the vacat- cant outset at other time ed or as conditions POSNER, Judge, Circuit concurring. require; I join Judge premises opinion, Nichols’ but his b. Removal the of all debris, and to disposition cross-appeal trash both as interior and laconic leads grounds; a my me to add statement of own view why the Securing properties against c. district court’s refusal to award the unau- defendants, damage winning entry parties, thorized and the ele- the as the ments at the outset and 54(d) thereafter as of suit costs under Rule should needed; be reversed. Mowing grass trimming

d. the and the shrubbery[.] rule, Under the “costs shall be al Contract, 7, lowed as of course provides prevailing party The AMB to the Article pertinent part: unless the court otherwise di [district] rects.” an original As matter

ARTICLE this lan 7.—CONTINUING SERVIC- guage interpreted could be give TO BE BY ES THE to the dis OBTAINED CON- judge trict an essentially TRACTOR unreviewable dis cretion to award or not to award costs to arrange The shall Contractor su- and winning party the pervise pleased. as the following continuing services But in accordance with this court has not interpreted all the terms and con- the rule “ specifically ditions hereof and thus. Article 9 We have said it ‘prin a establishes ” and the imposed ciple limitations preference’ Article (quoting Friendly, In The repair 10. actual or maintenance Discretion, discretion About 31 Emory costs shall be project reimbursable from 747, (1982)) L.J. excep 768 that in all but through Treasury, funds or the U.S. requires tional cases the judge to award paid through direct the Government winning party, costs to plain Treasury, appropriate, the U.S. tiff defendant. See Coyne-Delany Co. Continuing a. buildings maintenance of Capital Development Bd., 385, 717 F.2d grounds____ and (7th Cir.1983); Lines, Delta Air Inc. Colbert, Contract, (7th Cir.1982); The AMB F.2d provides, Article Bros., pertinent part: Popeil Elec., Inc., Inc. v. Schick (7th F.2d Cir.1975). 774-76 ARTICLE Since “the 8.—CUSTODIAL SERVICES: ingredients proper of a decision with [to perform Contractor shall custodial hold objective are factors ... acces costs] properties assigned services on vacant judgment sible to reviewing of a hereunder which are encumbered court,” mortgages assigned Coyne-Delany Capital Co. v. un- De velopment Bd., der of mortgage supra, contracts insurance or 717 F.2d at we property when the has been must abandoned determine whether such factors are the Secretary purchase and holds mon- present here. mortgage others, guarantees argue two factors. HUD only plaintiffs of limited first, they persons which of these are loans on houses in members means, weight little

monetary is entitled to high rate groups live. is said where the defendants as this in a case such on its loans to owners of default (with exception a broker hired are HUD, through people poor has made question) manage property foreclosure, biggest owner of slum expenses suit whose public officials in the After fore- property United States. States, which is by the United were borne closure, property standing tenant- with the tax- say by taxpayer. federal Most less, is com- rapid deterioration often means; most persons of limited payers case, plete, where HUD lost in this raised from such revenue is government in the its investment entire wealthy few. not from the persons, and got blight, neighbors eyesore, to the defendants The denial of costs menace, maybe even contend with. contribute, slightly, however case will not public are the unintended effects of Such egalitarian distribution of to a more unfortunate; They very benevolence. nation’s wealth. think, did, but to these ask The second factor that provide courts are authorized to federal whether, won is had us consider thinking. They remedy is wishful would be case, a “landmark” it would been only if there had an inva- authorized been decision; argue the efforts rights; plaintiffs’ legal sion of federal press litigants fundamental who Judge explains, there but as Nichols subsidized, changes in the law should be § 1441a, nothing in 42 the statute on losing deter such liti- high lest the risk founded, suggest this suit argu- I gants. question validity of this Congress provide legal protection meant to legal The today’s ment climate. federal neighbors housing from to of subsidized choking litigation, of courts much foreclosure, the side abandon- effects— meritless; losing of completely fear ment, housing deterioration —of federal much And seems to be of a deterrent. “ speaks of subsidies. When the statute ‘a to reward the loser of what would have ” environment,’ living preser- “the suitable case landmark if he had won creates been housing existing neighbor- vation paradox: following the the more frivolous hoods,” “neighborhood disintegration” suit, greater the the the landmark it would “deterioration,” referring not it is to unlikely establish in the event that it suc- neighbors the of the subsidized homeown- ceeded, stronger argu- and hence the the ers to the subsidized homeowners the A denying ment for winner his costs. conditions, living themselves. is their successful to overrule Brown v. suit Board neighbors, not those of their that the subsi- Education, 347 U.S. 98 S.Ct. dy protect improve. programs seek to (1954), seg- L.Ed. 873 and thus make racial rights To give neighbors the of action again regation public schools once law- against eq- HUD and its officials—whether ful, legal would one of all-time land- be the uitable, to to argu- spend force HUD whatever marks. No one takes the landmark forgiving money prevent building for the loser’s costs that to ment seriously; argues interpreting one no for that it has taken over foreclosure from 54(d) encourage bringing of Rule to the deteriorating, legal, compensate to that have no reasonable chance of lawsuits neighbors the nuisance created merely they if succeeding, because did suc- neglect only compound HUD’s —will legal work a revolution. ceed would having to HUD of to on cost foreclose its present lawsuit had no reasonable The just having Instead off to write loans. succeeding, fact and in borders chance loan, enough, would, which is bad the frivolous. on interpretation plaintiffs’ of the statute, pay have out part program subsidizing money to additional of its As veterans, poor, mortgagor’s neighbors money housing needs — Cort improve enough, is still cited otherwise be available often there is would housing. program would the stock its some doubt whether test remains au- expensive, more and the intended be made v. Sierra thoritative. See California no benefit would obtain net beneficiaries Club, 287, 302-03, 451 U.S. 101 S.Ct. expenses. plain- additional 1783-84, (1981) (concurring 68 L.Ed.2d 101 bring result tiffs ask us to about opinion). suggest The more recent cases purely defining trick: playing a verbal test, simpler intended “neighborhood” neigh- the set of mean See, private remedy. the courts to create a housing, though in the bors of subsidized — Fund, Fox, Daily Income Inc. v. e.g., simply statute the word means area -, 831, 839, U.S. 104 S.Ct. 78 L.Ed.2d of subsidized where the inhabitants hous- (1984). plaintiffs flunk this test Compare Neighborhood Develop- live. too. And even under the most liberal test §§ 1469 et Programs ment (no longer vogue) of Texas Pac.& —that seq. Ry. Rigsby, 33, 39, U.S. tracing likely consequences out the of 484, 60 874 (1916) whereby L.Ed. if a vio- — statute, plaintiffs’ interpretation of the lation the statute damage “results in seeking I dam- assumed one of the class for especial whose benefit ages just from HUD. The idea that Carla enacted, the statute was the right to recov- Hills, was President Ford’s who damages er the party from the default is Development, might and Urban implied,” could not win this personally liable for the untoward con- They case. among are not the statute’s sequences programs during of HUD’s her beneficiaries. intended liability might tenure —a run into the I have said that the suit had no fair of millions hundreds of dollars —is almost succeeding. chance of This is evident even words, silly especially too when one plaintiffs’ pendent we consider no considers that there is indemnification claims, whose dismissal district judg- officers whom a federal judge appealed. have not Be liability public ment levied. But cause federal claim was dismissed enough. be bad It would as I have said summary judgment, motion for it was not government’s increase the costs of the proper for the district even reach programs so and do for the benefit pendent claims; the merits of he frequently implacable opponents of those relinquished jurisdiction should have over programs, neighbors of the the the of sub- See, them. When the in Gautreaux v. sidy recipients. e.g., federal claims a case Pierce, (7th Cir.1983). trial, 707 F.2d 265 dismissed before the considera To liability seek a in judicial economy warrant the tions of that underlie the housing requires law itself the exercise of pendent jurisdiction doctrine of are dimin merely inflamed rather creative ished and outweighed- by the inroads imagination legal and should not be encour- autonomy doctrine makes into the aged Quixotes by giving the Don who of state in courts matters of state law. brought victory (slight this suit the moral that, is therefore the rule unless there are is) being paying as it of excused from special circumstances, of dismissal the fed defendants’ costs. requires eral claim before trial the district judge to pendent decline to exercise juris It does not matter in this case which diction over state-law claims. United question approach we take to of decid- Gibbs, Mine Workers America v. 383 whether statute that does not ex- 715, 726, 1130, 1139, U.S. 86 private S.Ct. 16 remedy create pressly for its vio- (1966); Bernstein v. L.Ed.2d 278 Lind- by pri- lation is nevertheless enforceable Co., Waldock & 179, persons. Judge explains, 738 F.2d (7th vate As Nichols 187 Cir.1984). special flunk the multi-factored There were no test circum Ash, v. 66, in Cort laid down 422 stances Although U.S. 95 here. the suit had been 2080, (1975). time, 45 L.Ed.2d Although S.Ct. 26 going long on for a and the district

1540 639, Inc., 630, rials, 101 S.Ct. 451 U.S. that was concerned judge 2066, (1981); 2061, L.Ed.2d 500 Trans- problem 68 of limitations have statute would Lewis, 444 v. court, Mortgage Advisors they america in state over started 245-246, 242, 11, 15-16, 100 S.Ct. Ill.Rev.Stat., 110, U.S. ch. not See have. would (1979). Thus, question L.Ed.2d 146 “[t]he noted that court also The district 1113-217. simply would benefit who by 28 would be entitled the defendants Act, Congress whether intended con- § 1442(a)(1) a state court to remove U.S.C. upon beneficiar- rights federal those fer Willing brought against them. See action Club, 451 v. Sierra U.S. ies.” 402, U.S. 89 S.Ct. Morgan, 395 ham v. California 1775, 68 L.Ed.2d (1969). dis But the 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1981). Congressional intent deci not have made the court should trict examining a number fac- discerned re remove for the defendants sion to tors, legislative his- including the statute’s pendent claims. taining the purpose, leg- tory, the statute’s overall prop- personal sympathy is not Finally, scheme, identity the class for islative withholding an award of costs basis for er particular benefit the statute was whose 54(d). judge, The district react- Rule express statutory passed, the existence citizen, way in not like the ing as a did legislative adequate remedies serve administered program a federal role of the purpose, and traditional case, govern- punished the in this and so he affording the relief claimed. states See by denying the defendants ment Fox, Daily 104 S.Ct. at Income Fund judi- my I thought If relevant to costs. 839; Texas Industries Materi- Radcliff attempt duty I to evaluate the cial 639,101 als, Inc., at at 451 U.S. S.Ct. 2066. might light the end program this and in goal The ultimate our national it is agree with his assessment. But no including policy policy, that embodied the of mine as a business National is “a decent home badly, government programs work well or living every suitable environment fairly unfairly, provided do not § family____” American 12 U.S.C. 1701t rights; anyone’s legal and it seems violate § (1982); (1982). plain- U.S.C. beyond argument nothing to me clear argued important part that an tiffs defendants did or failed to do this housing policy is the mainte- this national right plain- any legal of these case violated neighbor- preservation nance and of urban tiffs that was within district court’s question propo- hoods. While I do power enforce. sition, (1982), 1441a & b see history legislative there is no evi- FLAUM, Judge, concurring in Circuit re- indicating dence intended to sult. problem neighborhood disin- address agree my I brethren that we should conferring tegration by neighbors rejection affirm the district court’s right to sue HUD HUD-owned claims, plaintiff’s the district court damages suffered as a result denying abused its discretion the defend- fact, property. deterioration of it is 54(d). rule their ants costs providing neighbors clear that HUD- Supreme As a line of recent Court cases right is property owned with such a even clear, ultimate in a case makes issue goal consistent with the ultimate of nation- Congress as this is whether intended such housing provision policy, al of decent right private of action at the to create housing plaintiffs for all Americans. question. the statute in time enacted argue providing that them a damage with —Fox, See, v. e.g., Daily remedy Income Fund purpose will serve the of “deter- -, 78 L.Ed.2d ring policy neglect U.S. defendants’ in the (1984); Pierce, Lynch, Fenner Appellants’ Merrill future.’ Brief at 14. It may 645 Curran, 353, 377-78, be, however, problems 456 v. U.S. Smith associated & 1825, 1838-39, program 182 property disposition S.Ct. 72 L.Ed.2d with HUD’s origin (1982); complex such that do Texas Industries Mate- are of Radcliff simple Housing provides solution. I whether Act to a lend themselves private private right plaintiffs any right of implied an action to not find would specula property. force HUD maintain its on the basis such action here plaintiffs theory. The also tive deterrence that, can enacting I find no evidence in gives Housing Act argue that the them a Housing Act, Congress intended to cre- right neighborhood, a decent which en private right injunctive ate a of action for damages in this case. How them to titles persons plaintiffs relief as the ever, Housing assuming that the Act even legislative history this case. There no rights give neighbors, them some as did intention, suggesting my such an view rights certainly important not as these are neighbors of property that HUD-owned legislative the rights scheme as primary not the beneficiaries of the Hous- actually provides persons whom HUD ing Act further militates our find- because, housing. significant This is as private right of action in this case. observed, grant the court below “[t]o addition, In this is a case in which we neighborhood damage remedy residents should consider “the traditional role of the injuries resulting proximity their affording states in the relief claimed.” just to hazardous would divert Daily Fox, Income Fund v. 104 S.Ct. at provision adequate funds from hous unreasonably 839. Persons harmed by con- Hills, ing.” Burroughs F.Supp. neighboring ditions on property traditional- (N.D.Ill.1983). 1007,1017 Thus, there is no ly have to enjoin been able those conditions private right implied reason to find an through suits based on state common law damages action for in this case. theories or state or local In statutes. case, for example, the plaintiffs originally plaintiffs’ injunc- Because the claim for sought injunctive part relief in an based on below, became tive relief moot the court statute, §24, Illinois Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 11— argument there is that the issue of 13-15, provides that owners or ten- would have had a private ants who are adversely affected right injunctive of action for relief under neighbor’s violation of municipal certain or- Act is not before us. Neither may correct, restrain, dinances sue to party argument, has made this however. abate the assuming violation. Even it con- fact, In argued defendants have that all, sidered Congress the matter at un- plaintiffs private right have no of ac- doubtedly would have been aware of the all, plaintiffs tion at and the argued played traditional role by state and local that the district court erred because it providing injunctive law in per- relief for plaintiffs rights found that did have injured by neigh- sons conditions on their neighbors under the Housing but it property. bor’s This consideration lends give failed to them an effective means for support further conclusion that Con- vindicating (a rights damage those remedy) gress did not intend there be agree in this I parties case. with the private right of action for the injunctive relief damages issues this case.1 intertwined, and, since the district might opinion interpreted court’s sug- Turning question of costs un gesting that the 54(d), have had der rule I find that the district injunctive relief, a cause of action for I court’s refusal to award the defendants appropriate believe it that we decide their costs was an abuse discretion. In position 1. This assumes that did not state law force properly her to maintain or intend that HUD be repair immune from such suits. acquired through that HUD had (1982), Congress provided mortgage Although foreclosure. there is no here, question "sue and be need to decide this I note that capacity sued” in her official significant authority connection with suggesting there is carrying provisions of the out certain of permit the § 1702 was meant to such suits. In Housing including provisions Burr, National Federal 242, Administration v. 309 U.S. 488, this (1940), relevant to case. This court has not decided 84 L.Ed. 724 the Su- provision ap- preme § 1702 waiver interpreted broadly. Court 1702 ply where the of HUD is sued under showing clear particu- stated that absent a a that 1542 winning party.” v. to Baez United circuit, presumption a that ble there is this Justice, F.2d prevailing Department 684 to the be States costs should awarded of Thus, ab- 999, (D.C.Cir.1982). in the losing party must overcome 1003

party, and plaintiffs are liability finding for costs. presumption to avoid of a that this sence Colbert, Lines, F.2d v. 692 indigent, Inc. is no realistic concern Delta Air there Cir.1982). Historically, 489, (7th this will 490 to the defendants here awarding costs to be presumption found the court has attempting to vin- discourage persons from some only where there has been overcome rights in federal court. dicate their misconduct, default, fault, or action short, compelling is no in this there reason part pre- worthy penalty of on the of awarding to rule of case alter normal Recently, vailing this court held Id. side. prevailing party. to the costs may party overcome the losing a also plaintiffs’ Finally, regard to the showing indigency. by a of presumption claims, claims state the denial those law Co., 717 & Wire v. Central Steel Badillo appealed court was not district (7th Cir.1983). 1160, 1165 F.2d Thus, only I it not this court. find unnec- argued, not and the have essary inappropriate this court but also find, did that the defend- court below have to decide whether those claims should their con- penalized to be ants deserve entertained the district court. been litigation. Although the dis- duct in this did trict court state means,” interpret I do not

“of limited Thus, none of finding indigency.

as a previously recognized grounds for re-

fusing prevailing party to the costs Moreover,

present in this case. there no America, UNITED STATES existing expand need law in this area. Appellant, may presented While this case have novel importance, questions public interest found, as the district court this is an insuf- VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MISSOURI depart from ficient reason the normal COMPANY, Appellee. awarding prevailing rule costs No. 83-2188. party. The Circuit District Columbia Appeals, United States Court fees, explained: attorneys’ has “Unlike Eighth Circuit. unpredictability magnitude whose parties discouraged with otherwise merito- 15, March 1984. Submitted litigation, from small and rious claims 22, Aug. Decided 1984. fees, predictable printing, costs court reporters’ customarily and court fees have

been viewed as 'and reasonable litigation, properly

incidents of reimbursa- security type statutory deposits lar of suit is inconsistent with the interest on owed them under law); gravely per scheme or would interfere with state Knox Hill Tenant Council v. Wash function, (D.C.Cir.1971) governmental ington, F.2d formance of 448 1050-53 Congress plainly (holding, to use "sue and federal intended different laws here, sense, narrow "it must be than involved that tenants of HUD- sued" clause those gov declaratory presumed property that when launched owned sue HUD for injunctive agency relief under local and federal law ernmental into commercial world alleged authority regarding properly to ‘sue or be failure and endowed with sued,' maintain Hills, judi agency property); F.Supp. not less Estrada v. amenable (N.D.Ill.1975) (§ process private enterprise permits under like suit cial neighbors would be.” 309 U.S. at officials of HUD-owned circumstances alleging properly prop Council See also Merrill Tenant failure to maintain that S.Ct. at 490. HUD, (7th Cir.1981) (HUD erty, though officials whose 638 F.2d duties are discre brought tionary liability money tenants are immune from suit immune damages). operated property to recover HUD-owned

Case Details

Case Name: Leo Burroughs, Jr., Cross-Appellees v. Carla Hills, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cross-Appellants

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Aug 15, 1984

Citation: 741 F.2d 1525

Docket Number: 83-1604, 83-2289

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.