FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 24 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 12 46 -HLA-JR K K.A., an d t he ir a do pt edpa ren ts , M.A., an d t he ir a do pt edpa ren ts , et al ., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us RENEE WATERS, LAJOSHA HAYNES, et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 1 3, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES, andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Thro ug h t he ir a do pt iv e p aren ts , min or s K.A., M.A., andT.A. (col le ct iv el y ,

“ Pl ai nt iff s” ) ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th ei r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ct io n fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m un de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ). Pla in ti ffs als o app eal th e di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o a ll ow t he m to am en d t he ir c om

pl ai nta se co ndti m e. W e affi rm . Pl ai nt iff s ar gu edth atth ei r co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto be free fro m ha rm was vi ol at edby Rene e Waters , Lajos haHayne s, Li saBla ck fo rd , andCurti s B en ne tt (co ll ect iv el y , “ Defen da nt s” ), al l o f who m are em pl oyees o f Fam il y

Int eg rit y Pro gr am (“ FIP” ), a subc on tra ct orforth e Dep art m en t o f Ch il dr enan d F am il ie s o f St . Jo hn s C ou nt y , Flo rid a. Pla in ti ffs ha d b eentak enin to fos te r car e b y FIP i n 20 06 bu t wer e reu ni te d wi th th ei r m ot he r an d h er b oyfrien d i n l at e Nov em be r 20 07 . Plai nt iff

s wer e al m os t i m

m ed ia te ly sub

jecte d t o e m ot io na l, p hysic al , and se xu al ab us e atth e h an ds of the bo y fri en d. Pl ai nt iff s fi le d s ui t, al le gi ng th atDefen da nt s h adfai le d t o p ro te ctPla in ti ffs by retu rn in g t he m

to th ei r m ot he r an d h er b oyfrien d, wh o l iv edwitho utele ctric it y orwate r in a tr ai le r al le ge dl y in fes te d wi th m ag go ts an d d eadan im al s. Defe nd an ts ha d n otco nduc te d a“ ho m e study ” to de te rm in e whe th er the ho us e, m ot he r, or bo y fri en d wer e su it ab le forPla in ti ffs ’ return. The di stric t co urt d et erm in edth atPla in ti ffs ha d fa il edto m ak e o uta cl ai m 2un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 b ecau se Pla in ti ffs ’ fact s s ho wedth atth ey ha d b een in

jure d whi le in th e cu st od y

of t he ir o wn m ot he r an d h er b oyfrien d, ra th er tha n wh il e in th e cu st od y

of t he st at e o r it s ag en ci es . Thu s, Pl ai nt iff s co ul d n otm ak e a s ho win g th atDefen da nt s h advi ol at eda co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . The d is tri ctco urt al so de te rm in edth atDefen da nt s wo ul d b e imm un e fro m su itan yway

be cau se th ei r act io ns di d n otvi ol at e a cl earl y est ab li sh edco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng a m ot io n t o d is m is s un de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ). Harri s v . Iva x C or p., 1 82 F.3d79 9, 8 02 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Defen da nt s’ cla im of qua li fie d i m

m un it y m ean s t ha t we n eedon ly to de ci de whet he r Defen da nt s v io la te d a ny “ cl earl y est ab li sh edco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Po well v. Geo rg iaDep’t o f Hum anRes ou rces , 11 4 F .3d10 74 , 10 80 (11 thCir . 19 97 ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . Des pi te Pla in ti ffs ’ arg um en ts to th e co nt rary, thei r cas e is no t di st in gu is habl e fro m

DeSh an ey

v. Winn eb ag o C ou nt y

Depa rtment o f So ci al Serv ic es , 48 9 U.S. 1 89 , 10 9 S . Ct. 9 98 (19 89 ). DeSh an ey he ldth atth ere c ou ldno t be a § 1 98 3 a ct io n wh ere ach il d was sev erel y in jure d wh il e inth e cu st od y of h is na tu ral fathe r, ev enth ou gh th e st at e h adpre vi ou sl y tak encu st od y

of t he ch il d a nd ha d s tro ng reas on to be li ev e th atth e fat he r was co nt in ui ng to ab us e th e ch il d. DeSh an ey , 48 9 U.S. at19 2- 93 , 20 0- 03 , 10 9 S . Ct. at10 01 -0 2, 1 00 5- 07 . 3Pl ai nt iff s co nt en d t ha t DeS ha ne y

do es no t ap pl y

he re b ecau se th e go ve rn m en t i n DeS ha ne y “ ne ve r ha d c us to dy of th e ch il d,” wher eas Defen da nt s he re h adleg al an d p hysic al cu st od y ov er Pl ai nt iff

s fo r al m os t two years b efo re returni ng th em

to th ei r m ot he r. Howev er, i n DeS ha ne y , th e g ov ern m en t d id pr ev io us ly hav e cu st od y

ov er the ch il d. Id . at 2 01 , 10 9 S . Ct. at10 06 . Andev enif th atwere n otth e cas e, th e ex te ntof t he go ve rn m en t’s p as t cu st od y is no t a m ean in gf ul fact or . The “ affi rm at iv e duty to pro te ctari se s n otfro m th e St at e’s kn owl ed ge of t he in di vi du al ’s pre di cam en t o r fro m it s ex pr es si on s o f in te ntto he lp hi m , bu t fr om

th e li m it at io n wh ic h i t h as im po se d o n h is free do m

to acton hi s o wn be ha lf.” Id. at20 0, 1 09 S. Ct. at10 05 -0 6. Acco rd in gl y , th e g ov ern m en t m ay ha ve a dut y to pro te ctwhen it“ ta ke s a p ers on in to it s cu st od y an d h ol ds hi m

th ere ag ai ns t h is wil l.” Id . at 1 99 -2 00 , 10 9 S . Ct. at10 05 . Ty pi cal cas es are wh ere t he pe rs on is in carc erat edor i nv ol un ta ril y in st itut io na li zed . Id. at20 0, 1 09 S. Ct. at 10 06 . The g ov ern m en t o wes th es e p eo pl e a dut y be cau se th e g ov ern m en t h as ta ke n a way

th ei r “ free do m

to acton [th ei r] own b eh al f,” wh ic h i s t he “ ‘dep riv at io n of li be rty’ tri gg eri ng th e p ro te ct io ns of t he Due P ro ces s C laus e.” Id . Bu t wh ere t he go ve rn m en t m erel y returns a ch il d t o h is ho m e– pl aci ng “ hi m in no wors e p os it io n t ha n t ha t i n wh ic h h e wou ldha ve be enha d i t n otact edat al l” –the re i s n o duty

forth e g ov ern m en t t o p ro te ctth e ch il d a ndth us th ere c anbe

4no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n i f th e ch il d i s i nju red . Id. at20 1, 1 09 S. Ct. at10 06 ; s ee

al so Cam p v . Greg ory , 67 F.3d12 86 , 12 93 (7t h C ir. 1 99 5) (ho ld in g t ha t the go ve rn m en t m ay

face li ab il ity

un de r § 1 98 3 wh ena ch il d i s t ak enfro m hi s h om e an d p la cedin a st at e-ch os enfos te r ho m e, whe re h e is subs eque nt ly inju red ). Inth e cu rren t ca se , Pla in ti ffs were i nju redby the ir m othe r’s bo y fri en d a t th ei r own ho us e. The b oyfrien d “ was in no sen se a st at e act or ,” DeSh an ey , 48 9 U.S. at 2 01 , 10 9 S . Ct. at10 06 , no r were Pl ai nt iff s “ to ta ll y de pe nd en t upo n t he st at e,” Woot env. Ca m

pb el l, 4 9 F .3d69 6, 7 01 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). They hadbe en pl acedwith t he ir n atur al m othe r an d wer e n o l on ge r in th e cu st od y of t he go ve rn m en t o r it s ag en ts . The g ov ern m en t’s “ fai lure t o p ro te ctanin di vi du al ag ai ns t p riv at e v io le nc e si m pl y do es no t co ns ti tu te a vi ol at io n o f th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se .” DeSh an ey , 48 9 U.S. at19 7, 1 09 S. Ct. at10 04 . Accor di ng ly, Defen da nt s h adno du ty to p ro te ctPla in ti ffs fro m th e b oyfrien d’s ac ti on s, an d a vi ol at io n o f § 1 98 3 c an no t b e m ad e o utun de r th es e fac ts . DeSha ne y , 48 9 U.S. at 20 1- 02 , 10 9 S . Ct. at10 06 -0 7. As DeSh an ey

no te d, “ th e St at e d oe s n otbe co m e th e p erm an en t g ua ran to r of anin di vi du al ’s saf

ety by hav in g o nc e o ffer edhi m sh el te r.” Id . at 2 01 , 10 9 S . Ct. at10 06 . The d is tri ctco urt was pro pe r in di sm is si ng th e co m pl ai ntfor fai lu re t o st at e a cl ai m

up onwhi ch rel ie f can be gra nt ed . Id. at20 2- 03 , 10 9 S . Ct. at10 06
- 507 ; Woo te n, 4 9 F .3dat 6 99 .

Pl ai nt iff s al so ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o l etth em am en d t he ir co m pl ai nta se co ndti m e. Thi s n orm al ly is re vi ewedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n, b ut whe re the di st ric t co urt d en ie d apl ai nt iff lea ve to am en d o n a cco un t o f fu ti li ty, we rev ie w th e d en ia l d e n ov o b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d a s a m atte r of law th at“ anam en de d c om

pl ai nt‘ wou ldne ces sa ril y fai l.’” Freem anv. Fi rs t Un io n Nat’l, 3 29 F.3d12 31 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ti ng St. Ch arl es Fo od s, In c. v. Am eri ca’s Fav or it e Ch ic ke n C o., 1 98 F.3d81 5, 8 22 (11 th Cir . 19 99 )). Si nc e we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Pl ai nt iff s co ul d n otm ak e o uta va li d § 19 83 cla im un de r th ei r own ve rs io n o f th e fac ts , as d is cu ss edab ov e, itwou ldha ve be enfut il e to all ow fu rth er am en dm en ts on th e subjec t. Itwas n oterro r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt to refu se Pla in ti ffs ’ subs eque ntam en dm en ts . Freem an , 32 9 F .3dat 1 23 5. W e are sym

pa th et ic to Pla in ti ffs ’ pl ig ht . They were s ub jecte d t o u nl iv ab le co nd it io ns an d abu se , perhaps as t he res ul t o f Defen da nt s’ fai lu re t o c on du ctan ev al ua ti onof t he su it ab il it y of P la in ti ffs ’ m ot he r, bo y fri en d, an d h om e. Bu t the Due Pro ces s C laus e “ do es no t tran sf orm ev ery to rt c omm it te d b y

a st at e act orin to a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” DeSh an ey , 48 9 U.S. at20 2, 1 09 S. Ct. at10 06 . In a cas e li ke th is , th e co urt’s i ni ti al foc us is no t o n wh ethe r Defen da nt s wer e d erel ic t orne gl ig en t, b uton whet he r Defen da nt s o wedPla in ti ffs a co ns ti tu ti on al du ty at 6al l. The an swe r un de r DeSh an ey an d Woo te n i s t ha t Def

en da nt s d idno t, an d t hi s ne ces sa ril y

m ean s tha t Pl ai nt iff

s’ cla im s fa il un de r § 1 98 3. Id . at 2 02 , 10 9 S . Ct. at 10 06 -0 7; W oo te n, 4 9 F .3dat 7 01 . Plai nt iff s m ay be ab le to see k d am ag es ag ai ns t Defen da nt s u nd er s ta te to rt l aw, DeSh an ey , 48 9 U.S. at20 1- 02 , 10 9 S . Ct. at10 06 , bu t the di st ric t co urt h ere p ro pe rly dis m is se d P la in ti ffs ’ co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o st at e a cl ai m

up onwhi ch a fed eral co urt co ul d g ran t re li ef. AFFIR MED. 1

Plaintiffs’ reque st for ora l arg uments is DENI ED. 1 7