### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A pril 2 0, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1505 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00916 -CV -A -N
ROBERT GRIF FIN, A NN E T T E G RI FF IN , a s I ndi vid ua ls and next friends and Adm inistrators of the E sta te of Br an dy H obso n, de ce as ed , Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe llants , ve rs us TR O Y S TA TE UN I V ER S I TY , a n e n t i t y or ga ni zed un de r th e la ws o f th e St at e o f Ala ba m a, et al., D ef en da nts , EDWARD RICHARDS ON, DO UG LA S H AW KI NS , GERALD O. DIAL, JOHN D. HARRISON, A L L E N E
. O W E N , I II , e t a l. , a ll as ind ivi dua ls, D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .Th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr e vi ously

dis mis se d th e c la ims a g a ins t th e se de fe nd ants , T ro y State 1 Un ivers ity

(“ TSU ” ), and

the Tr us te e s o f t

he TSUB oa

rd , in the ir of fi c ia l c a pa c iti e s. Th a t or de r i s not at issue here
. 2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 20, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BI N A a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ro be rt G ri ff

in an d A nne tte G ri ff

in, as ne xt f

ri en ds and A dm ini str at or s of the Est at e o f Bra nd y

Hob so n, ap pe al th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d is m is sa l o f th ei r 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c la im s, pur suant t o F ed
. R. Ci v. P
. 12( b) (6 ), a ga ins t tw el ve de fe nda nts , in the ir indiv idual capacities. T he Gr iffins filed this claim after their 17-y ear- old daug hter, 1 Br an dy H obso n, aT ro y

S ta te U niv er sity (“ T SU ”) stu de nt, w as m ur de re d in he r oncam pus do rm itory

during her first sem ester at the school. The G riffins alleged that by r equir ing stu de nts und er

the a ge of

19 t o live on c am

pus, T SUa ssu m ed

aduty to pr ovi de a de qua te se cu ri ty f or it s stude nts . T he G ri ff

ins as se rt ed tha t by

vir tue of the
on- ca m pus liv ing r equir em en t, D ef en da nts f orm ed a“ spe ci al r el at ion shi p” w iththe ir daught er a nd, the re af

te r, w er e de lib er at el y

ind if fe re nt t o in ad eq ua te se cu ri ty a nd3

co ntr ol i ssu es on the T SUc am pus. T he G ri ff

ins al le ge d vi ola tio ns o f Br an dy ’ s F if th
an d F ourte en th A m en dm en t r igh ts, a ll in v iol at ionof § 19 83. The district court dism issed the c o m p l aint after finding the defendants wer e
en tit le d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty . O n a

ppe al , the G ri ff

ins ar gue thi s dec isi on wa s w ro ng be ca use T SU ’ s r equir em en t tha t c er tain stu de nts , suc h a s B randy H obso n, li ve on
ca m pus cr ea te d a“ spe ci al r el at ion shi p, ” giv ing r ise to a dut y , und er the F ou rt ee nth A m e n d m e n t , t o p r o t e c t t h o s e s tu d e n t s f r o m h a rm b y t h i r d p a rt i e s . B as edon o ur tho ro ugh re vie w of

the re co rd an d care fu l co nsi de ra tio n of the pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e fi nd
n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

a n da f f i rm.

“ W e rev ie w the d istri ct

c ourt’ s gr an t of

qua lif ie d im m uni ty de nov o to the extent the appeal concerns pure issues of law, includin g whether the underly ing law gove rn ing of

fi ci al c ondu ct

w as c le ar ly

e sta bli she d. ” Ma glu tav. S am ple s, 375 F
. 3d 1269 , 1273 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing S m ith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416, 1418 (11th Cir. 1997 ). “ W e re solve all issu es of m aterial f act in favor of t h e p l aintiff, and then det e rm i ne t he l e ga l q ue st i ono f w he t he r t he d e f e nd a nt i s e nt i t l e d t o qu a l i f

ied im m uni ty und er tha t ve rs ion of the fa ct s. ” D ur ru thy v. Pa sto r, 351 F. 3d 1 080, 108 4 (11th Cir. 2003); Le e v. Ferr aro, 284 F.3d 1188 , 1190 (11th Cir. 2002).

“ Qualified im

m unity offer s com

plete protection for go vernm ent officials sued in their indiv idual c apacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established4

st at ut or y or c on st it ut io na l ri gh ts of wh ic h a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .” L ee , 284 F
. 3d at 1193 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and ci ta tio ns om itt ed ). “ T he pur pose of this imm

unityis to allow governm ent officials to ca rr y o u t their discretionary dut ie s w ith out

the f ear of pe rs ona l l ia

bil ity or ha ra ssi ng l iti ga tion, prot ec tin g f ro m suit all bu t the plainlyinc om petent or one who is knowingl y violatin g the federa l law. ” Id. (internal quotatio n m ar ks and citation s om itted). “ Beca use qualified im m uni ty is a de fe nse not

onl y f ro m li ab ili ty , but

a lso f ro m sui t, it is ‘ im porta nt f or
a co urt t o as ce rt ai n the va lid ity of a qua lif ie d im m uni ty de fe nse as e ar ly

in the la w sui t
as pos sib le
. ’ ” Id
. ( quot ing G JR I nvs. , I nc . v. Co unt y

of Esca m

bia , 132 F
. 3d 1 359, 1370 (11th Cir. 1998) (citation om itted)). In order to re ceive qualified im m unity , a publi c officia l “ m

ust first prove that he wa s a ct ing w ith in the sc ope of his dis cr et ion ar

y a uth or ity w he n th e al le ge dly
wr ongful acts occurred.” L ee, 284 F.3d at 1194 (internal quo tation m arks om itted). Inthi s c as e, the re is no con te nt io n tha t the D ef en da nts w er e not

a ct ing w ith in the ir dis cr et ion ar

y dut ie s so w e pr oc ee d to the ne xt s te p a t w hic h th e bur de n sh if ts t o th e plaintiff to prove that qu alified im m unityis not warr anted. I d. T he Suprem e Court ha s a rt ic ula te d atw o- pr ong te st t o a id i n thi s a na ly sis
. S ee V iny ar d v. W ils on, 311 F. 3d 1 340, 134 7 ( 11 th Ci r. 200 2)
. F ir st, “ [t ] ak enin the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the pa rty a sse rt ing the inj ur

y , do the fa ct s al le ge d sh ow the of fi ce r’ s c ondu ct

vio la te d a5

co nst itu tio na l r igh t?” Sau ci er v. K at z, 533 U
. S. 194, 201, 121 S. Ct
. 2151 , 150 L
. E d. 2d 2 72 (2 001)
. Se co nd, if a co nst itu tio na l r igh t “ w oul d ha ve be envio la te d un de r the pla int if f's v ers io n of the f

ac ts, ‘ the ne xt, se que nti al ste p is to as k w he the r the r igh t
wa s clearly

established.’ ” V iny ard, 311 F.3d at 1347 (quotin g Saucier , 533 U .S . a t 201, 121 S
. Ct
. 215 1)
. I t i s th e pla int if f’ s bu rd ento es ta bli sh b oth pr ongs of the fo re goi ng t es t t o de fe at

ade fe nda nt’ s m oti on f or sum m ary jud gm ent ba se d on q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y . S e e H o l l o m a n e x r e a l
. H o l l o m a n v . H a r l a n d , 3 7 0 F
. 3d 1 252, 1264 ( 11t h C ir
. 2004 ) (“ If the pla int if f pr ev ai ls o n bo th p ro ngs of thi s te st, the n th e defendant is unable to o btain summ ary j udgm ent on qu alified im m unitygrounds .” ) He re , t h e d istrict court applied the two-part Sa ucier test and concluded that qua lif ie d im m uni ty appl ie d. On t he f

ir st p ro ng, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound no
co nst itu tio na l vi ola tio n of sub stanti ve due pr oc es s un de r the F ourte en th A m en dm en t because the Sup rem e Cou rt h as h eld that subs tantive due process does no t require a St at e to p ro te ct

it s c iti ze ns’ li fe , li be rty , or pr ope rty a ga ins t inv as ionby

pr iva te a ct or s. Se e D eS ha ne y

v. W inn eb ag o C ounty

D ep t. of S oc ia l S er

vs. , 489 U
. S. 189, 195, 109 S. Ct
. 998 ( 1989 ) (h old ing “ not hin g inthe la ngua ge of the D ue P ro ce ss C lause it se lf
re q u i r e s t h e S t a t e t o p r o t e c tt h e l i f e , l i b e rt y , a n dp r o p e rt y

o f i t s c i t i z e n s a g a i n st invasio n by

private actors. T he Clause is phrased as a lim itation on the State's powe r to a ct , not

a s a gu aran te e of

c er ta in m ini m al le ve ls o f sa fe ty a nd s ec ur ity ”)
. T he6

dis tr ic t c ourt al so fo und tha t the “ spe ci al r el at ion shi p” e xc ep tio n to D eS ha ne y did not ap ply be ca use Br an dy H obso n vo lun ta ri ly a tte nde d T SUa nd the on- ca m pus hous ing requirem en t d i d n o t place H obso n in a custodi al rela tions hip. Finally , the district
co urt c onc lud ed

tha t the G ri ff

ins ha d no t a lle ge d c ondu ct t ha t ro se to the le ve l of arbitrar y or conscious-sh ock i ng in th e constituti onal sense. See W addell v. H endry Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e, 329 F
. 3d 1 300, 130 6 ( to e sta bli sh a sub stanti ve due p r oc es s vi ola tio n in a no n- c us t od i a l si tua t i on , pl a i nt i f f m us t sh ow “ de l i be r a t e i nd i f f e r e nc e to an
ex tr em el y gr ea t r isk

of se ri ous in

j ur y to som eo ne in Pl ai nti ff s’ pos iti on” ( ci tin g McClendon v. City

of Colum

bia, 305 F. 3d 31 4, 326 (5th Cir. 2002) (stating that Pl ai nti ff w as r equir ed

to de m onstra te tha t “ the de fe nda nt sta te of fi ci al at a m ini m

um act ed with de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e tow ar d th e pla int if f” ); N ix v
. F rankl in C ounty Sc hool D ist
. , 311 F
. 3d 1 373, 137 6 (1 1t h C ir
. 200 2) ( co nc lud ing tha t de lib er at e indifference wa s insu fficient to constitute a due-process violatio n in a non-custo dial
sc ho ol set ti ng )). W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s th or ough an al y sis of the f ir st S au ci er

pr ong
an d it s co nc lus ion tha t, on thi s re co rd , the G ri ff ins ha ve not sa tis fi ed the ir bur de n to showtha t the D ef

en da nts ’ c ondu ct

vio la te d ac onst itu tio na l r igh t. Mor eo ve r, ev en if

the G ri ff ins m et the f ir st p ro ng, the y

ha ve not c ha lle nge d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n onthe se co nd p ro ng. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t e ve n if the7

G ri ff ins ’ s su bst an tiv e due pr oc es s cl ai m sa tis fi ed Sa uc ie r’ s fi rs t pr ong, the G ri ff ins
co uld not sho w the la w on the ir sub stanti ve due -p rocess c la im w as c le ar ly
es ta bl is he d. As the district court concluded, the D efendants’ conduct w ould rise to the le vel of a substantiv e due process violation “ onlyif the ac t can be charac terized as arbitrar y
or c onsc ie nc e shoc kin g inac onst itu tio na l se nse . ” W ad de ll v. He ndr y Co unt y Sh er if f' s O ff ic e, 329 F
. 3d 1 300, 130 5 (1 1th Ci r. 200 3) ( ci tin g C oll ins v. Ci ty of H ar ke r H ei ght s, T ex . , 503 U
. S. 115 , 11 2 S
. Ct
. 106 1, 106 8, 117 L
. E d. 2d 2 61 (1 992) ). “ ‘ [O ] nly the m ost eg re gio us off ic ia l cond uc t ca n be sai d to be a rb itr ar y in the c onst itu tio na l se nse . ’ ” Id
. ( quot ing Co unt y of S ac ram en to v. L ew is, 523 U
. S. 833 , 118 S. Ct. 1708 , 1716, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1998)(quo tation and citatio n om itted)). Mor eo ve r, “ [d ] et er

m ina tio ns o f w ha t i s e gr eg iou s c ondu ct m ust not be m ad e in the glow of hind sight ; decisions m ade by a governm ent actor m ust

be e gre gio us- -t hat is, sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce-- at th e ti me th e go ver nme nt ac to r made th e d eci si on .” W ad de ll, 329 F. 3d at 1305 (e m

pha sis in or igi na l)
. A s w e ha ve not ed , on a ppe al , the G ri ff

ins do no ta r gu e t ha tt he y

h a ve m e tt hi s st a nd a r d, n or d o t he y c ha l l e ng e t he district
co urt’ s c onc lus ionon the iss ue . A ga in, it is the ir bur de n to sa tis fy bot h pr ongs of the qua lif ie d im m uni ty a na ly sis
. Ba se d on the G ri ff ins ’ fa ilure to c ha lle nge the se co nd pr ong, w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t co urt’ s gr an t of qua lif ie d im m uni ty . Mo re ove r, e ve n if8

w e w er e to re ac h the se co nd pr ong, w e co nc lud e, as w e did a t the f ir st s te p, tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt tho r o u g hly

c onsi de re d a nd r ej ec te d e ve ry a rg um en t r ai se d inthi s a

ppe al
. W e find no error in its qualified-im m unity analy sis. Ac cordingly , we affirm the entry of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the de fe nda nts . AFFIRMED.