T. S. v. County of Cook ( 2023 )

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21‐3303
T. S., et al.,
Plaintiffs‐Appellees,
v.
COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS and
LEONARD DIXON,
Defendants‐Appellants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:16‐cv‐08303 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Chief Judge.
____________________
ARGUED NOVEMBER 1, 2022 — DECIDED MAY 15, 2023
____________________
Before ROVNER, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.
BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Twentieth Century Fox Television
filmed scenes for the fictional television series Empire at the
Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in 2015.
The Center changed its operations to accommodate filming.
Those changes resulted in this case.
2 No. 21‐3303
In this interlocutory appeal, we consider whether the Cen‐
ter’s superintendent, Leonard Dixon, is immune from suit un‐
der the Illinois State Lawsuit Immunity Act, 745 ILL. COMP.
STAT. 5/1. Because the alleged wrongful conduct arose from
decisions Dixon made within the scope of his authority as su‐
perintendent, he is entitled to state sovereign immunity. We
therefore reverse the district court’s denial of summary judg‐
ment and dismiss this case.
I
A
In 2015, the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center housed
over 300 youth awaiting trial or other court proceedings. That
summer, a Twentieth Century Fox Television location scout
contacted Superintendent Dixon about filming scenes at the
facility for the fictional television series Empire. Dixon agreed,
believing it “would be good for the kids” and create “energy
in the facility.” Fox TV could use the Center’s outdoor yard,
visitation room, medical office, and certain living spaces to
film for five days in June 2015. In exchange, Fox TV would
pay a daily lease fee, reimburse any costs incurred, and work
with the Center’s administration to avoid disrupting its nor‐
mal functions. With permission, Fox TV returned to film re‐
takes for four days in July 2015 and three days in August 2015.
The Center made several adjustments to its daily opera‐
tions during the Empire filming. Detainees live in housing
units known as “pods,” each containing 16 or 18 single rooms
that open into an enclosed common area. For safety reasons,
the Center maintains a policy of limiting the functional capac‐
ity of each pod to 12 or 14 detainees. So that Fox TV could use
two pods for filming and storage, during filming days several
No. 21‐3303 3
other pods housed more detainees than the policy suggested.
As for daily activities, the detainees in some pods exercised in
the facility’s indoor gyms or in pod common areas instead of
the outdoor yard. School was in session for three days during
the July filming period, and classes took place in the pods in‐
stead of the classrooms. The Center also postponed or can‐
celled some extra‐curricular activities and held visitation
hours in a slightly smaller room.
The Chief Judge of Cook County has operational and ad‐
ministrative control over the Center under the County Shelter
Care and Detention Home Act, 55 ILL. COMP. STAT. 75/1 et seq.
Under the Act, the Chief Judge appointed Dixon to serve as
the Center’s superintendent. 55 ILL. COMP. STAT. 75/3(b). The
parties stipulated that Dixon had “final decision‐making au‐
thority” on behalf of the Chief Judge “regarding whether to
permit the staging and filming of scenes for Empire” and
“whether and how the [Center’s] operations would be altered
in order to accommodate” filming.
B
T.S., Q.B., and H.C.,1 detainees at the Center during the
Empire filming, filed a proposed class action lawsuit against
Dixon (in his personal capacity), the Chief Judge (in his offi‐
cial capacity), Cook County, Fox TV, and other Fox entities.
The detainees brought several federal and state law claims
based on allegations that restrictions at the Center were “more
severe” during filming days than those “in many adult jails.”
The district court resolved the defendants’ motions for sum‐
mary judgment in two orders. It first granted summary
1 After the district court denied the plaintiffs’ first motion for class
certification, the plaintiffs added H.C. to their complaint.
4 No. 21‐3303
judgment to the Chief Judge because, in overseeing the Cen‐
ter, the Chief Judge acted as a state official and was therefore
immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Months
later, it granted summary judgement in favor of the Fox de‐
fendants on all claims.
In that same order, the district court addressed the claims
against Dixon and Cook County. The plaintiffs, in a claim
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, argued that the confinement
conditions at the Center amounted to “punishment” in viola‐
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The
district court granted Dixon summary judgment on qualified
immunity grounds because the plaintiffs had not shown “a
clearly established right to be free of the arguably modest dis‐
ruptions” they experienced.
As to the state law issues,2 the district court granted Dixon
and Cook County summary judgment on the intentional in‐
fliction of emotional distress claim but denied it as to the
breach of fiduciary duty claim. In a matter of first impression,
the district court decided that Dixon acted as the detainees’
guardian and thus had a fiduciary duty to “protect [them]
from harm.” A jury could, in the district court’s view, find that
Dixon breached that duty by failing to protect the detainees’
“safety and well‐being” during filming.
In so holding, the district court rejected Dixon’s sovereign
immunity defense. Dixon had argued that, as a state
2 After the district court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim, only state law claims remained. But the district court exer‐
cised its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the claims due
to “this case’s lengthy procedural history and the extensive judicial re‐
sources expended thus far.”
No. 21‐3303 5
employee, he was immune from suit under the Illinois State
Lawsuit Immunity Act, 745 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/1. The district
court acknowledged that a state’s sovereign immunity can ex‐
tend to state employees sued in their individual capacity. But
it also highlighted a sovereign immunity exception recog‐
nized by this court in Murphy v. Smith, 844 F.3d 653 (7th Cir.
2016). Under this officer suit exception, a defendant is not en‐
titled to sovereign immunity where a “plaintiff alleges that
state officials or employees violated statutory or constitu‐
tional law.” Murphy, 844 F.3d at 660 (internal quotations omit‐
ted).
The officer suit exception identified in Murphy played a
major role in the district court’s analysis. Dixon received qual‐
ified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment conditions‐of‐
confinement claim and thus could not be held liable for a con‐
stitutional violation. But the district court reasoned that
Dixon’s qualified immunity did not “negate the possible pres‐
ence of an underlying constitutional violation,” meaning the
officer suit exception could still apply. And since the constitu‐
tional and state law claims were based on the same conduct,
Dixon could not yet avail himself of sovereign immunity. So,
the breach of fiduciary duty claim could proceed to trial. Ad‐
mittedly, this holding created an unusual dynamic. Dixon
would only be entitled to sovereign immunity on the state law
breach of fiduciary duty claim if he proved at trial that he did
not violate the detainees’ constitutional rights.
Dixon and Cook County moved to certify the district
court’s summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal un‐
der 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In support of their motion, they
pointed to the Illinois Supreme Court’s statement in Parmar v.
Madigan that “a complaint seeking damages … does not fall
6 No. 21‐3303
within the officer suit exception to sovereign immunity.” 106
N.E.3d 1004, 1010 (Ill. 2018) (citing Leetaru v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ.
of Ill., 32 N.E.3d 583, 598 (Ill. 2015)). Since the detainees here
seek damages, Dixon and Cook County argued the officer suit
exception did not apply.
The district court certified the following question:
[W]hether, under Illinois law, the officer suit ex‐
ception to sovereign immunity applies only if a
plaintiff seeks to enjoin a continuing violation of
statutory or constitutional law.
This court accepted Dixon and Cook County’s petition for in‐
terlocutory appeal.3 “An appeal under § 1292(b) brings up the
whole certified order.” Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle
Par., Calumet City, 3 F.4th 968, 974 (7th Cir. 2021). As such, we
“may address any issue fairly included within the certified or‐
der because ‘it is the order that is appealable, and not the con‐
trolling question identified by the district court.’” Id. (quoting
Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205
(1996)). We review de novo the district court’s grant of sum‐
mary judgment. Trahanas v. Nw. Univ., 64 F.4th 842, 852 (7th
Cir. 2023).
II
Under the Erie doctrine, “state rules of immunity govern
actions in federal court alleging violations of state law.”
3 In June 2021, the district court also granted in part and denied in part
the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Concurrently with their peti‐
tion for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), Dixon and Cook
County filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the class certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). We stayed consideration of
the Rule 23(f) petition pending our resolution of this appeal.
No. 21‐3303 7
Benning v. Bd. of Regents of Regency Univs., 928 F.2d 775, 777
(7th Cir. 1991) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)).
An Illinois statute provides that “the State of Illinois shall not
be made a defendant or party in any court.” 745 ILL. COMP.
STAT. 5/1. Whether that statute covers state law claims like the
plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary claim against Dixon “is a matter
of state law.” Murphy, 844 F.3d at 658. “Our role is to decide
questions of state law as we predict the state supreme court
would decide them.” Id.A
We first address whether Dixon, in his superintendent
role, is a state actor. Our analysis begins with the Cook
County Chief Judge, who appointed Dixon.
In 2007, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Deten‐
tion Home Act, 55 ILL. COMP. STAT. 75/1, “to move manage‐
ment of the Center from the domain of the County’s political
branches to the domain of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
in whose Chief Judge state law now vests authority.” Doe v.
Cook Cnty., Ill., 798 F.3d 558, 560 (7th Cir. 2015). The Chief
Judge now has the power to appoint the Center’s superinten‐
dent and “all other necessary personnel” to “serve at [his]
pleasure.” 55 ILL. COMP. STAT. 75/3(a), (b). Before the amend‐
ment, the chief judges in every other Illinois county adminis‐
tered juvenile detention centers. The amendment brought
Cook County in line with that practice. The amendment also
gave the Chief Judge “administrative control over [the Cen‐
ter’s] budget … subject to the approval” of the county board.
55 ILL. COMP. STAT. 75/3(c). This additional empowerment,
unique to Cook County, gives the Chief Judge more financial
control over the Center. The Chief Judge’s administrative
8 No. 21‐3303
duties over the Center “arise from his State employment.”
Mullins v. Evans, 187 N.E.3d 178, 201 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Since the Chief Judge acts as a state official in administer‐
ing the Center, we next address the relationship between the
Chief Judge and Dixon. As stated, the Chief Judge appointed
Dixon to serve as the Center’s superintendent, and Dixon
serves at his pleasure. Relevant here, the parties stipulated
that Dixon had final decision‐making authority on behalf of
the Chief Judge as to whether to allow and how to accommo‐
date the Empire filming. Therefore, when making these deci‐
sions, Dixon was acting with the authority granted him by the
Chief Judge. Because he acted under the delegated authority
of the Chief Judge—a state officer—Dixon is also a state actor
for purposes of any Empire‐related decisions.
Resisting this conclusion, the plaintiffs argue that Dixon is
a Cook County employee, rather than a state employee,
because Cook County pays his salary. Although the county
does pay Dixon’s salary, 55 ILL. COMP. STAT. 75/3(a), Illinois
reimburses the county for that expense. Under state law, the
Supreme Court of Illinois’s Division of Probate Services must
“reimburse the county or counties” for certain probation ser‐
vices, including “100% of the salary for all secure detention
personnel.” 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 110/15(4)(c). Because the state
ultimately reimburses the county for Dixon’s salary, this ar‐
gument does not persuade.
B
Dixon is a state actor, so we consider whether he is
shielded from suit by state sovereign immunity. Before 1970,
Illinois addressed sovereign immunity in its state constitu‐
tion. The 1870 Illinois Constitution provided that “[t]he State
No. 21‐3303 9
of Illinois shall never be made defendant in any court of law
or equity.” ILL. CONST. of 1870, art. IV, § 26. One‐hundred
years later, the 1970 Illinois Constitution abolished sovereign
immunity “[e]xcept as the General Assembly may provide by
law.” ILL. CONST., art. XIII, § 4. Acting under this provision,
the General Assembly restored sovereign immunity through
the State Lawsuit Immunity Act, which provides that “the
State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any
court.” 745 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/1. Instead, the Illinois Court of
Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over “[a]ll claims against the
State founded upon any law of the State of Illinois.” 705 ILL.
COMP. STAT. 505/8(a).
The prohibition “against making the State of Illinois a
party to a suit cannot be evaded by making an action nomi‐
nally one against the servants or agents of the State when the
real claim is against the State of Illinois itself and when the
State of Illinois is the party vitally interested.” Sass v. Kramer,
381 N.E.2d 975, 977 (Ill. 1978). Therefore, the “formal identifi‐
cation of the parties as they appear in the record is not dispos‐
itive.” Leetaru, 32 N.E.3d at 595. Instead, “[w]hether an action
is in fact one against the State, and hence one that must be
brought in the Court of Claims, depends … on the issues in‐
volved and the relief sought.” Healy v. Vaupel, 549 N.E.2d 1240,
1247 (Ill. 1990). “[S]ubstance takes precedence over form.”
Leetaru, 32 N.E.3d at 595.
The plaintiffs bring a breach of fiduciary claim for dam‐
ages against Dixon in his personal capacity. Since the formal
identification of the parties is not dispositive, we must decide
whether the plaintiffs’ claim is “nominally one against” Dixon
and instead one “against the State.” Sass, 381 N.E.2d at 977.
10 No. 21‐3303
An action brought against a state employee is considered one
against the state when:
[T]here are (1) no allegations that an agent or
employee of the State acted beyond the scope of
his authority through wrongful acts; (2) the
duty alleged to have been breached was not
owed to the public generally independent of the
fact of State employment; and (3) where the
complained‐of actions involve matters ordinar‐
ily within that employee’s normal and official
functions of the State.
Healy, 549 N.E.2d at 1247 (quoting Robb v. Sutton, 498 N.E.2d
267, 272 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)). And if an action brought against
a state official in his or her personal capacity “could operate
to control the actions of the State or subject it to liability,” it is
also considered an action against the state. Currie v. Lao, 592
N.E.2d 977, 980 (Ill. 1992).
Scope of Authority. Whether “an agent or employee of the
State acted beyond the scope of his authority,” Healy, 549
N.E.2d at 1247, depends on whether “the employee intended
to perform some function within the scope of his or her au‐
thority when committing the legal wrong,” Jackson v. Alverez,
831 N.E.2d 1159, 1164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). As stated above,
Dixon had state authority to accommodate the Empire filming.
So, when making operational decisions surrounding Empire,
Dixon “intended to perform some function within the scope
of his … authority” as the Center’s superintendent. Id. And
nothing in the record indicates that Dixon acted outside of the
scope of his authority.
No. 21‐3303 11
That Dixon allegedly caused the plaintiff detainees harm
in accommodating the Empire filming does not mean that he
acted outside the scope of his authority. “[S]overeign immun‐
ity presupposes the possibility of a legal wrong by a state em‐
ployee.” Id. And “legal wrongs are, per se, unauthorized, [so]
the relevant question cannot be whether the employee had au‐
thority to commit the legal wrong. Instead, the question is
whether the employee intended to perform some function
within the scope of his or her authority when committing the
legal wrong.” Id. In making operational decisions to accom‐
modate the Empire filming, we conclude that Dixon intended
to act within the scope of his authority as superintendent.
Source of Duty. Next, we consider whether the “duty al‐
leged to have been breached was not owed to the public gen‐
erally independent of the fact of State employment.” Healy,
549 N.E.2d at 1247. “[T]he proper inquiry is to analyze the
source of the duty the employee is charged with breaching in
committing the allegedly [wrongful] act.” Currie, 592 N.E.2d
at 980. Where the alleged wrongful conduct “arose out of the
State employee’s breach of a duty that is imposed on him
solely by virtue of his State employment,” sovereign immunity
bars the action in circuit court. Id. But “where the employee is
charged with breaching a duty imposed on him inde‐
pendently of his state employment, sovereign immunity will
not attach.” Jinkins v. Lee, 807 N.E.2d 411, 420 (Ill. 2004).
The Illinois Supreme Court has recognized a few instances
in which a state employee’s duty arose independently of state
employment. Sovereign immunity will not bar a claim of a
state employee’s negligent driving. Currie, 592 N.E.2d at 981
(citing Bartholomew v. Crockett, 475 N.E.2d 1035 (Ill. App. Ct.
1985)). In Currie, a state trooper caused an accident while
12 No. 21‐3303
performing a “routine operation of a motor vehicle on a pub‐
lic street,” breaching a duty that arose from the trooper’s
status as an automobile driver. Id. at 982. In the same vein,
doctors working for state government are not shielded by
sovereign immunity for violating a duty “inherent in the doc‐
tor‐patient relationship.” Jinkins, 807 N.E.2d at 421. Such a
duty exists regardless of employment by the state. The same
goes for violations of the Illinois Criminal Code. Fritz v. John‐
ston, 807 N.E.2d 461, 469 (Ill. 2004). All citizens—regardless of
their status as state employees—must abide by the state’s
criminal statutes. Id.Here, the source of any duty Dixon owed to the detainees
stems solely from his role as superintendent. The plaintiffs ar‐
gue to the contrary. They claim Dixon owed them a duty as
their caretaker, and that this caretaker duty exists inde‐
pendently of Dixon’s employment. We disagree. Even assum‐
ing Dixon acts as the detainees’ caretaker, this duty arises only
from his role as superintendent. Dixon would owe no duty to
the detainees outside of the detention‐center context. And the
detainees’ allegations make clear that their claim against
Dixon stems from his failure in the performance of his duties
as superintendent. So, we have no doubt that the source of
any duty Dixon owed the detainees comes from his state em‐
ployment.
Official Functions. Third, we ask whether the breach in‐
volved matters “ordinarily within … the normal and official
functions” of the superintendent of a juvenile facility. Healy,
549 N.E.2d at 1247. This third criterion “overlap[s] to some
extent” with the first. Jackson, 831 N.E.2d at 1164. Allocating
facility space, scheduling recreational and extra‐curricular
programming, and managing the day‐to‐day operations of
No. 21‐3303 13
the Center remained within Dixon’s normal and official func‐
tions. The plaintiffs argue that Dixon acted “for reasons other
than what [he] perceived to be the best interests” of his em‐
ployer when deciding to allow the Empire filming. However,
Dixon’s motives do not factor into whether he acted within
his normal functions.
Under our analysis of the three Healy factors, Dixon acted
both within the scope of his authority and within his normal
and official functions as superintendent in making decisions
related to the Empire filming, and the source of any duty owed
to the detainees stems from his state employment. So, we con‐
clude that the plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary claim against
Dixon is a claim against the State of Illinois and therefore
barred by its sovereign immunity statute.
C
For a few reasons, the district court got off track in its anal‐
ysis of Illinois state sovereign immunity. Admittedly, the
State Lawsuit Immunity Act “has generated a considerable
body of case law that has not always been consistent in defin‐
ing those instances where the State is made a defendant in cir‐
cuit court.” Leetaru, 32 N.E.3d at 602 (Burke, J., dissenting).
Generally, two lines of cases dealing with suits against
state employees have emerged. The first line of cases ad‐
dresses whether a suit brought against a state employee in his
personal capacity is an action brought against the state. In
those cases, Illinois courts have applied the three Healy factors
to decide whether such a claim is “nominally one against the
servants or agents of the State when the real claim is against
the State of Illinois itself.” Sass, 381 N.E.2d at 977. Because the
plaintiffs brought the breach of fiduciary duty claim against
14 No. 21‐3303
Dixon in his personal capacity, the district court should have
applied the three Healy factors.
A second line of cases deals with suits brought against
state employees in their official capacities. An official capacity
claim against a state official is “not a suit against the official
but rather a suit against the official’s office. As such, it is no
different from a suit against the State itself.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (citation omitted). The “of‐
ficial acts of State officials are in effect acts of the State.” Sass,
381 N.E.2d at 977. But if a plaintiff “seeks to enjoin the defend‐
ant from taking actions in excess of his delegated authority
and in violation of plaintiff’s protectible legal interests,” then
“[s]uch a suit does not contravene the immunity prohibition.”
Bio‐Med. Lab’ys, Inc. v. Trainor, 370 N.E.2d 223, 227 (Ill. 1977);
Ellis v. Bd. of Governors of State Colls. & Univs., 466 N.E.2d 202,
206–07 (Ill. 1984). Thus, the officer suit exception applies when
a plaintiff seeks to enjoin state officials from ongoing statutory
or constitutional violations.
The officer suit exception “is premised on the principle
that while legal official acts of state officers are regarded as
acts of the State itself, illegal acts performed by the officers are
not.” Leetaru, 32 N.E.3d at 596. In these instances, a “suit may
therefore be maintained against the officer without running
afoul of sovereign immunity principles.” Id. Illinois state
courts “have repeatedly reaffirmed the right of the plaintiffs
to seek injunctive relief in circuit court to prevent unauthor‐
ized or unconstitutional conduct.” Id. But the officer suit
exception does not apply in a damages suit. In Parmar, the Il‐
linois Supreme Court affirmed that “a complaint seeking
damages for a past wrong does not fall within the officer suit
exception to sovereign immunity.” 106 N.E.3d at 1010. The
No. 21‐3303 15
detainees do not seek to enjoin Dixon from any ongoing vio‐
lations of statutory or constitutional law. The district court
thus erred in applying the officer suit exception to Dixon’s
case, a personal capacity suit seeking damages.
In discussing the officer suit exception, the district court
relied on this court’s decision in Murphy. In that case, a pris‐
oner brought a personal capacity suit against prison officers.
Murphy, 844 F.3d at 655. The prisoner sought damages for al‐
leged violations of state and federal law. Id. Murphy cited Lee‐
taru for the proposition that: “[t]he Illinois doctrine of sover‐
eign immunity does not apply to state‐law claims against a
state official or employee who has violated statutory or con‐
stitutional law.” Id. While that is an accurate statement of the
officer suit exception, the court in Murphy did not discuss the
injunctive nature of the relief sought in Leetaru or the fact that
Leetaru involved an official capacity suit. In Murphy the court
held that, because the defendant had acted “in violation of
statutory or constitutional law,” sovereign immunity did not
bar the plaintiff’s claims. Id. at 660. Although the court
acknowledged the three Healy factors govern whether a claim
against a state official “is a claim against the state,” it did not
apply them in its analysis. Id. at 658.
Due to its reliance on Murphy, the district court did not
consider the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs or
whether the plaintiffs sued Dixon in his personal or official
capacity. As stated previously, the Healy factors should have
been applied in this personal capacity suit for damages.
III
Dixon is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Healy
factors, so we REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary
16 No. 21‐3303
judgment and REMAND with instructions to DISMISS the re‐
maining claim.