proceeding is not a vehicle for the resolution of factual disputes; it is designed to determine whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial. Id.
III. MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Dumas filed an action against the CHA seeking actual and punitive damages. The CHA has filed a motion to strike Dumas' claim for punitive damages relying upon the Supreme Court decision in City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S. Ct. 2748, 69 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981).
In City of Newport, an organization licensed by the City of Newport to present musical concerts sued the city and city officials alleging that cancellation of a license amounted to a violation of their constitutional rights under color of state law. The court in denying punitive damages stated that "punitive damages by definition are not intended to compensate the injured party, but rather to punish the tortfeasor whose wrongful action was intentional or malicious, and to deter him and others from similar extreme conduct." City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S. Ct. 2748, 69 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981). "It remains true that an award of punitive damages against a municipality 'punishes' only the taxpayers, who took no part in the commission of the tort." Id. "Neither reason nor justice suggests that such retribution should be visited upon the shoulders of blameless or unknowing taxpayers." Id. Accordingly the Court held that "a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Id. Similarly, this court in Hammond v. Cicero, 822 F. Supp. 512, 516 (N.D. Ill. 1993) held that as a municipality, the CHA is not liable for punitive damages under § 1983.
Plaintiff asserts that the CHA should be liable for punitive damages based on this court's decision in Hamrick v. Lewis, 515 F. Supp. 983 (N.D. Ill. 1981). However, Hamrick has been effectively overruled by City of Newport. Therefore, Plaintiff's arguments are not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, the CHA's motion to strike all Plaintiff's prayers for punitive damages is granted with prejudice.
IV. CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Dumas alleges that she was denied due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because CHA failed to provide notice of the cancellation of her Section 8 certificate and failed to inform her of the right to an informal hearing on the certificate denial. The CHA argues that Dumas has failed to present sufficient facts to establish a constitutional violation and that she never actually requested a new certificate. Because the record presents a genuine issue of material fact, the cross motions for summary judgment are denied.
Dumas is a pro se litigant and this court will examine her motion for summary judgment and response to the CHA's motion under a more liberal standard than pleadings drafted by an attorney. Rule 8(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice." The Supreme Court has frequently stated that pro se pleadings are to be given a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972).
This court finds that Dumas has brought forth sufficient facts to support her allegations and to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The CHA argues that Dumas has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a due process violation. Paragraph 17, entitled "Constitutional Violations", of Plaintiff's complaint makes the following allegation:
"The defendant CHA refusal to adequately inform the plaintiff of her housing status or issue or deny her a new certificate for continuation participation per her requests, or the right to an hearing, or notice of termination of her certificate is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment" Comp. at P 17.