NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0653n.06 No. 08-3586 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

SAMUELHOWARD, J R., Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. CI TY OF GI RARD, OHI O, and JOHN DOES 1-4, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

THE NO RTH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B EF OR E: SI L ER, GI B B ON S, a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Plaintiff S am u el Ho ward, J r. sued the City of Gira rd, Ohio, and se vera l city emer g ency worke rs (John Does 1-4) for failing to pr event him f rom viewing the scene of his fathe r’s suicide. Be cause p laintiff’s complaint does not a lleg e that the c ity operated with the re quisite amount of “deliber ate indiffe renc e” to warra nt liability

under the Four

teenth Amendme nt, we af firm the district court’s g rant of de fenda

nts’ motion to di smiss. I. Pla int if f S a mue l H ow ard, J r., the n 1 7 y e ars old , c a lle d 9 11 be c a us e he ha d b e e n una

ble to contac t his father f

or two to three day s. He shared an apar tment with his father

in Girard, O hio, andNo. 08-3586

Ho war d v . Ci ty of G ira rd

I n the district court, plaintiff’ s mother, Kimberly Howar d, was a lso a party plaintiff claiming 1 los s of c on so rt ium re la te d to he r re la tio ns hip wi th he r so n and he r e xpe nd iture s o f s ub sta nti a l sums of m oney for his medical treatment. However, K imberly Howar d was not included in the c laim of - 2 - ha d s le pt i n a ha llw ay ou tsi de of the a pa rtme nt fo r se ve ra l da

y s be c a us e he c ou ld no t g a in a c c e ss t o the apa rtment or conta ct his father

. Em e rg e nc y pe rs on ne l arr ive d a nd fo rc ibl y e nte re d th e a

pa rtme nt. Th e e me rg e nc y

c re w d id not restra in Howar d or pre vent him from enter ing the apar tment. Howar d discovere d his father ly ing

nake d o n a

be d w itha

se lf -i nf licted guns ho t wou nd

to h is h e a d. Ho wa

rd a tte mpt e d to c lot

he his fathe r, who wa s still alive but died af ter the e merg ency

cre w took him to the local hospital. Samuel Howar d, J r. sued the city and J ohn Doe members of the emerg ency cre w pursuant to 4 2 U .S. C. § 1983 for f a ili ngto l imi t H ow ard ’s a c c e ss t o th e a pa rtme nt u nti l th e c re w f

ir st

surv e y e d th e int e ri or

of the a pa rtme nt. Pla int if

f c la ims that th e e me rg e nc y c re w’ s f a ilure to r e str a in him wa s th e “ re su lt o f a la c k of pr op e r tr a ini ng , re c kle ssn e ss an d g ro ss ind if fe re nc e to t

he c ivi l r ig hts and we ll-being of Samuel Howa rd as we ll as the inhabitants of the City of Gira rd.” I n his amended c omplaint, plaintiff f irst alleg ed that the c ity ’s fa ilure to train its emerg ency

c re w t o p re ve nt h im f

ro m e nte ri ngthe a

pa rtme nt v iol a te d h is s ub sta nti ve due pr oc e ss r ig hts in violation of the Four

teenth Amendme nt and re sulted in “seve re psy chic injury .” Second, pla intiff soug ht to impos e li ability upon the city for neg lige nt infliction of emoti onal di stress on the g rounds that it failed to train its employ ees to pr ev en t him from enter ing the apar tment. Third, plaintiff

asser ted that t h e ci ty

was ne g lige nt beca

use its alleg ed fa ilure to train its employ ees w as the pr oximate c a

us e of his ps y c hic inj ur ie s. Th e dist ri ct c ourt dis mis se d th e fi rs t c ount f or fa ilure to 1No. 08-3586

Ho war d v . Ci ty of G ira rd

appea l. - 3 - state a c la im und e r Rule 12 (b )( 6) of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure , a nd de c lin e d to e xer c ise

su pp le me nta l juri sd ic tio n o ve r t he re ma ini ngc ounts , w hic h w e re ba se d o n sta te law. Pla int if f t ime ly appea led. II. Pla i n t i ff ar gu es t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt erre d i ngra n t i n g d ef

en d an t s ’ m o tion to dis miss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. We re view de novo the district court’s g rant of de fenda

nts’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Zaluski v. United Am. He althcare Corp. , 527 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir. 2008). I n Be ll A tla nti c Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544 (2007), t h e S u p reme Court explained t h at “a plaintiff’s oblig ation to provide the ‘g rounds’ of his ‘e ntitle[ ment] t o relief ’ require s more than labe ls and conc lusions, and a formulaic rec itation of the eleme nts of a ca use of action will not do[ .] Factua l alleg ations must be enoug h to raise a ri gh t t o relief above the speculative level . . . .” Id

. at 555 (interna l c itations omitted). The Supreme Court re cently clar ified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , —

U. S. — , 1 29 S. Ct . 1 93 7, 19 48 -5 0 ( 20 09 ) t hat: the p le a d in g s ta

n d ar d Ru le 8 an n o un c e s d o e s n o t r e qu ir e “ d e ta il e d f a c tu al a lle g a tions,” bu t it

de mand s mo re tha

n a n una do rn e d, the -d e fe nd antunlawfully -har

med-me a ccusation. [ Twom bly , 5 5 0 U. S

. at 5 5 5 ] (c i t i n g Papasan v. Al lai n , 4 78 U. S. 2 65 , 286 (1 98 6) ). A ple a din g that off e rs “ la be ls a nd c on c lus ion s” or “a formulaic r ecitation of the elements of a cause of ac tion will not do.” 550 U.S., at 555. Nor doe s a complaint suffic e if it tender s “nake d asser tion[ s]” devoid of “fur ther fa ctual enha

nceme nt.” Id. , at 557. To survive a motion t o dismiss , a complaint must contain suffic ient fac tual matter, acc epted a s true, to “state a claim to r elief that is pla usible on its face .” Id ., at 570. A claim has facia l plausibili ty when the pla intiff pleads fa ctual conte nt that allowsNo. 08-3586

Ho war d v . Ci ty of G ira rd

Municipal liability

under 42 U. S

. C

. § 1983 may not be base d on a theor

y of re spondeat 2 superior. Monell v. D ep’t of Soc. Se rvs ., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Mo ne ll require s that a plaintiff su inga mun ic ipa lity , s uc h a s a

c ity , mu st i de nti fy an unc on sti tut ion a l poli c y or c us tom in o rd e r t o preva il on a § 1983 claim ag ainst it. Id . at 694. “ Mo ne ll ’s rule that a city is not liable under § 1983 unless a municipal policy

cause s a constitutional deprivation will not be satisfied by mere ly alleg ing that th e e xistin g tr a ini ngpr og ra m f or a c la ss of emp lo y ees , s uc h a s p oli c e of fi c e rs , r e pr e se nts a policy for whic h the city is r esponsible. That much may be true . The issue in a c ase like this one, howeve r, is whether

that training prog ram is adequate; and if it is not, the question becomes whe ther - 4 - the cour t to draw the r easona

ble infer ence that the def endant is liable for the misconduct al leg ed. Id ., at 556. The pla usibili ty standard is not akin to a
“ p r o b a b i l i t y r e qu i r e m e n t , ” b u ti ta s k s f o r m o r e t h ana

s h e e r p o s s i b i l i t y tha t a defe ndant has a cted unlaw fully

. Ib id . Where a complaint pleads fa cts that are “mer ely consistent with” a de fenda nt's liability , it “st o p s short of the line be tween possibili ty

and plausibility

of ‘e ntitlement to relief.’” Id ., at 557 (bracke ts omit ted). Two workingprinciples under lie our dec ision in Twom bly . F ir st, t he tene t th a t a c ourt mus t a c c e pt a s tr

ue a ll of the a lle g a tio ns c on ta ine d in a c omp la int

is inapplicable to leg al conc lusions. Threadba re r ecitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice

. Id ., at 5 55 (Althoug h for the pur

poses o f a moti on to dismi ss we must take a ll of the fac tual alleg ations in the complaint as true, we “ar e not bound to a ccept as t ru e a leg al c on c lus ion

c ou c he d a s a

fa c tua l a lle g a tio n” (i nte rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a r k s o mit te d) ). Rul e 8 marks a nota

ble and gen er ous depar

ture fr om the hy

per- technica l, code- pleading reg ime of a pr ior era , but it does not unlock the doors of discove ry for a plaintiff arm e d w ithno thi ngmor e tha n c on c lus ion s. Se c on d, on ly a c omp la int

that st a te s a plausible claim for

relief survives a motion to dismis s. Id ., at 556. De t er m ining wh e the r a c omp la int

state s a pla us ibl e c la im f

or re lie f w ill , a s th e Court

of Ap pe a ls ob se rv e d, be a

c on te xt-s pe c if

ic ta sk tha t r e qu ir e s th e re vie wi ngc ourt to d ra w o n it s judicial experience and common sense . 490 F.3d, at 157-158

. Bu t where the well-plea ded fa cts do not permit the court to infer more than the mer e possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleg ed – but it has not “show[n] ”– “that the pleade r is entitled to relief.” Fe d. Rule Civ. P roc. 8( a)( 2). To prevai l o n a cla im ag ainst the city under § 1983, pla intiff must establish both: (1) the deprivation of a constitutional rig ht, and (2) the city ’s responsibility for that violation. El lis e xre l. Pe nd e rg ra ss v. Cle v e lan d Mun . Sc h. Di st. , 455 F.3d 690, 700 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Or, in the wor ds of 2No. 08-3586

Ho war d v . Ci ty of G ira rd

such inade quate tra ining can jus tifiably be said to re prese nt ‘city

policy .’” City

of C an ton v . H

arris , 489 U.S. 378, 389-90(1989) ( footnote omitted). Plaintiff also fails to s at i s fy t h e fi rst and sec ond prong s of McQ ueen . Plaintiff does not 3 a l l e g e t h a tt h e C i t y o f G i r ar d t o o k an a f f i r m a t i v e a c tt h a te x p o s e d

H o w ar d t o h ar m . T o t h e c o n t r a r

y, plaintiff maintains that the City of Gira rd is culpable f

or not aff irmatively

actingto restra in Howar d from ente ring the apa

rtment. The only

aff irmative ac t that d ef

en dants took, as alleg ed in the - 5 - the dis tr ic t c ourt , “ [f]o r a mun ic ipa lity to be he ld lia ble fo r a c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n, a pla int if f m us t show an a ctual constitutional violation for which the municipa lity is responsible.” De sp ite the fa c t that F e de ra l Rul e of Civ il Pr oc e dure 8( a )( 2) re qu ir e s o nly “ a sh or t and pla in statement of the c laim” at the c omplaint stage , we hold that plaintiff’ s amende d complaint falls short of the Twom bly

threshold. The district c ourt noted corr ectly that while plaintiff argues “Gira rd wa s deliberately

indiffer ent to Howar d’s ‘rig ht to du e p ro cess of law,’” he does not “ identify which particula r right Girard vi olated.” Moreove r, the Due Process Clause of the Four teenth Amendme nt do e s n ot g e ne ra lly

re qu ir e a

mun ic ipa lity

to p ro te c t an in div idu a l f ro m ha rm by thi rd pa rt ie s. De Sh an e yv . W inn e bago Cou nty

De p’ t of So c . S e rv s. , 489 U.S. 189, 195-97 (1989). There is an exception, howeve r, for “state- cre ated da

ng er.” We have he ld that the “statecre ated- dang er the ory

of due process liabili ty ” has three require ments: (1) an aff irmative act by

the state that cr eate s or incre ases the r isk that an individual w ill be exposed to private ac ts of violence, (2) a specia l dang er to the vic tim a s o p p o s ed to t he public at lar g e, and ( 3) the re quisite deg ree of state culpa

bility

. McQ ueen v. Beeche r Cmty. Sch. , 433 F.3d 460, 464 (6th Cir. 2006). Althoug h they raised se vera l arguments below, plaintiff’s sole a rg ument on appea l relate s to the district court’s analy sis of the third McQ ueen pr on g . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt he ld t hat de fe nd ants c ou ld n ot b e he ld l ia ble 3No. 08-3586

Ho war d v . Ci ty of G ira rd

amende d complaint, was to open the door t o Howar d’s apa rtment. See M

cQue en , 433 F.3d at 467 (ac t of leavingstudents unsupervised in a cla ssroom, after which one stude nt shot another, did not incre ase the risk of har

m to the victim and thus did not constitu t e an af fi rm ati ve ac t). Moreove r, the re wa s no ac t, af

fi rm a tiv e or oth e rw ise , whi c h pla c e d How ard in a ny da ng e r o f v iol e nc e fr om a third party
. And plaintiff has failed to c ite any authority holding that emotional injury resulting from private a cts of self- inflicted violence may constitute a “spe cial dang er.” - 6 - unless they

acte d with “deliber ate indiffe renc e,” me aning in this contex t that “[t] he st ate must have known or clea

rly should ha

ve known that its a ctions specific ally endang ered an i n d i vidual.” Kallst rom v. City of Columbus , 136 F.3d 1055, 1066 (6th Cir. 1998). The district court conc luded that plaintiff fa iled to alleg e suff icient fa cts to suppo rt h i s am ended complaint beca use he did not alleg e that Gira

rd, or its employ ees, a cted with any thing but re cklessness. Plaintiff c laims that the district c ourt overlooke d lang uag e in the ame nded complaint stating that de fe nd a nts ’ “ a c tio ns we re the re su lt o f i mpr op e r t ra ini ngand

g ro ss i nd if

fe re nc e , in

a dd iti on to

rec klessness.” How ever , plaintiff does no t d ev elop t his arg ument as it relate s to a state-c reated-da

ng er the ory

of due pr ocess liability ; he m ere ly states hi s conclusion that the district court e rre d. Whil e he dedicates two pag es of his appellate brief to discussing the standard of revie w, he only spends two cur sory

para g raphs a dvancinghis arg ument. This argument is prese nted in such a per functory

manner that we c ons i d er it to be forfe ited and summarily aff irm the district court’s judgme nt. Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire I ns. Co. , 462 F.3d 521, 525 n.4 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (stating that

an iss ue me nti on e d in a c ur so ry mann e r in an a pp e lla te br ie f is f

or fe ite d) ; United States v. Robinson , 390 F.3d 853, 886 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (“[i] ssues adver ted to in a perf

unctory manner , unacc ompaniedNo. 08-3586

Ho war d v . Ci ty of G ira rd

- 7 - by some eff

ort at developed arg umentation, are deeme d waived[.]”) (interna l quotations and citation omitted). The fina l sentenc e of plaintiff’s brief s tates: “[i] n addition to ignoringthese a lleg ations, the trial court did not ac cord to Appellants [ sic] the bene fit of eve ry infere nce that could be dra wn from the alleg ations.” Plaintiff does not de velop this arg ument, fails to identify the infer ence s that the trial court did not make i n his favor, a nd g ives us no g uidance reg ardinghis prefe rre d interpre tation. Pla int if f’ s o ne -s e nte nc e pa

ra g ra ph , w ith ou t any

re fe re nc e to t he re c or d, argume nt, or c itatio n to authority , ag ain war

rants no ana ly sis, and we hold that this issue is also forfe ited. III

. For these re asons, we a ffirm the judg ment of the district cour t.