Opinion
96 C 5191
July 13, 2001
This is a lawsuit resulting from the steady process of altering the neighborhood around the University of Illinois at Chicago. Ever since the building of the University in this city, there was controversy because it changed, irrevocably, the character of the neighborhood-particularly the areas known to most Chicagoans as Maxwell Street and Taylor Street. The grand City planning issues associated with this project are not at issue in this case-they are simply part of the background. Thomas Saniat used a couple of lots on Liberty Street to store items which he calls "antiques, car parts, metal objects and the like" which he would sell or lease as "urban artifacts for theatrical and/or movie productions, art classes and artists." Saniat alleges that he "has a keen eye for such treasures even though the uninitiated may not appreciate the objects out of context." There are photographs in this record of these treasures, the accuracy of which is not disputed. A reasonable administrator of a municipal government could reasonably conclude that Saniat was using the lots as a junkyard filled with rusting wrecks, old tires, wooden pallets and other objects of minimal value stored in a way that maximizes unsightliness.
I accept that Saniat believed he had leased two (of several) of these lots from a certain individual but that individual had no legal interest in one property and the lease on the other had expired. But Saniat also knew as early as 1994 that the lots were to be cleared. Someone from the University had told him this on 1 August 1994. The University actually owned one of the lots. The clean up occurred on 17-18 August 1994, although it did not include one of the lots. Saniat was told to stay off the lots but he didn't. He was arrested three times for trespass to land, obstructing a police officer and so forth. Once, he was arrested when the District Commander saw plaintiff walking in front of the bulldozers on the lot. Eventually all the lots were cleared. The vehicles on the lot were towed to the extent they could be towed. Many of the vehicles were so rusted out that they fell apart when moved. Saniat eventually got the City to release two of his vehicles and waive fees and fines. Saniat (who has not responded to the motion for summary judgment) has sued an awful lot of people-many of whom played no role in his plight and do not belong in the case under any circumstance. The Commissioner of Streets and Sanitation played no direct role in his troubles except that it is alleged she spoke to a City hearing officer, but there is no evidence that she said anything improper. The hearing officer is sued but there is no proof that she did anything wrong and, by ordinary City standards, Saniat did pretty well in his hearing. This is summary judgment and allegations are not enough-there must be evidence. The Assistant Commissioner of Streets and Sanitation cannot be found liable for refusing to tell his name to Saniat at the scene. For the towing of the vehicles, Saniat had an adequate post-deprivation remedy and that is enough. The towing company-Environmental Auto Removal is not a state actor here. It is just a towing company with a contract to remove the stuff that the City told it to remove. To the extent it is a state actor, it is not liable here because there was an adequate post-deprivation remedy for the damage and, in the context of this case, nothing more is required. All the police officials are off the hook, either because they played no role in the arrest or because they had probable cause for the arrests. There is no dispute that Saniat was a trespasser, and I know of no proposition that decriminalizes trespass because the purpose of the trespasser is to exercise free speech on trespassed ground. Even if such a doctrine did exist, it would not, I think, protect the actions of someone who could have moved a few feet away from the lot and raged against the clearing of the lot. In any event, there is qualified immunity. No case is cited for the proposition that enforcing the trespass laws in this context is unlawful. The City is out of the case because there are no adequate allegations of municipal policy and no proof of such policies. Saniat knew, two and a half weeks before the clearance, that the lots were going to be cleared. He had time to remove his property. He knew for an even longer period of time that much of the land was owned by the University. Some of the vehicles on the lot were inoperable and had been on the lot for many days. Notification of towing (permitted by City ordinances of the sort commonly found in this country) were put on several of the vehicles. Saniat thinks the whole clearance was an injustice. I am inclined to think (after viewing the photographs) that it was not. But even if it was, it was not a violation of any of his constitutional rights. I have carefully examined the record provided by the defendants to which plaintiff has offered no counter. Saniat has asked for extensions of time to respond, but I have not given all he asked. He had many weeks, and, it is clear that all he has is a long list of grievances against the City, all of which he wants to fold into this case, but he has failed to show that any of it was to make this specific case a better one.
All the defendants are entitled to summary judgment and I grant it.