2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-6-2009 

# C a rlo s Ro dr ique z v

. C it y of P hi l a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-4784

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion " C a rlos Rodr iquez v

. C it y of P hi l a " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 508. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/508NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 4784

_____________ CA RLO S ROD RI QU EZ, CO LLEEN RO DR I QU EZ, A ppel l ant v. T H E C IT Y O F P H IL A D E L P H IA

_____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 4021 ( Ho n o r a b l e J o h n P . F u l l a m)

_____________ S u b m it ted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu it L . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

Sept ember 15, 2009 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F U E N T E S , a n d S M IT H , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober 6, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui t J udge: A ppel l ant s C ar l os and C ol l een Rodri quez a ppeal t he fi nal or der of t he D i s t r i ctFo r s im plic it y , we r efer t o M r. Ro driquez a s “ Ro driquez” or “App el lant.” Mr. 1 R o driqu ez’s w if

e, C o lleen R o driqu ez, is a p arty to th is actio n , b u t sh e asserts o n ly a lo ss of c ons ort i um

c l a i m whi c h i s de r i vat i ve of he r hus band’ s c l a i m . Se e O’ Connor v. Ci ty of N ew ark , 4 4 0 F .3 d1 2 5 , 1 3 0 n .8 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ).

- 2- C our t , w hi ch gr ant ed t he C i t y of Phi l adel phi a’ s m ot i on for s um m ar y j udgm ent . A t t he t i m e w hen t he eve nt s under l y i ng t hi s l aw s ui t t ook pl ace , R odr i quez w as a pol i ce of fi cer 1 empl oy ed byt he C i t y of Phi l adel phi a ( t he “Ci t y ”) . O n Sept ember 7, 2005, R odr i quez w as w or ki ng t he eve ni ng s hi ft at t he j ai l i n t he N i nt h Pol i ce D i s t r i ct w hen he w as at t acke d by a pr i s oner . H e fi l ed t hi s l aw s ui t , al l egi ng t hatt he C i t y vi ol at ed hi s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s by expos i ng hi m t o danger ous condi t i ons of empl oy m ent . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt g ra n ted th e C ity ’s m o tio n f o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, fin d in g th a t A p p e llan ts f a iled to p ro v e th a t th e C ity v io la te d R o d ri q u e z ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . W e w ill a f f ir m . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l y for t he par t i es , w e onl y r evi ew t he fa ct s and pr ocedur al h is to ry n e c e s s a ry to re s o lv e th e is s u e s ra is e d o n a p p e a l. Onthe e ve ni ng of Sept ember 7, 2005, Ro driquez was inst ruct ed to re po rt

to the N in th P o lice D istric t i n or de r t o c ove r the C lo sedC ircu it T elev isio n V iew in g (“C C T V ”) sectio n o f th e j ail, w h ere in m ates w ait to m ake a ppe ar anc e s i n c ourt

vi avi de o. Pur s uant

t o a pol i c y announc e d by

the Comm andi ng Offi c e r

of the Di s tr i c t

the we e k pr i or

t o the att a c k on Rodr i que z , four of fice rs were re qu ir ed to wo rk in the CCT V sec ti on at any given tim e. When Ro driquez arr i ve d for

hi s s hi ft , howe ve r , he be l i e ve d that he wa s the onl y

offi c e r a s s i gne d t o theRodr i que z ’ s be l i e f that he wa s the onl y

offi c e r worki ng i n the CCTV ar e at urns 2 out not t o have be e n c orr e c t . Offi c e r Hol de n wa s a l s o on duty i n the s e c t i on dur i ng R o driqu ez’s sh if

t, alth o u g h R o driqu ez w as n o t aw are o f h is p resen ce w h en h e sp o k e to Offi c e r Le e . Anothe r

offi c e r , Offi c e r

Saba l s ki , wa s s uppos e d t o be i n the CCTV s e c t i on as w ell, b u t h adeith er n o t sh o w n up f o r w o rko r h adstep p edo u t o f th e b u ild in g .

- 3- s e c t i on. Rodr i que z c ont a c t e d as upe rvi s or , Offi c e r Le e , and e xpr e s s e d c onc e rns ove r the 2 i na de quat e c ove r a ge i n the CCTV s e c t i on. Le e e xpl a i ne d that the r e wa s i ns uffi c i e nt m anp o w er to p u t ad d itio n al o f f icers in th e C C T V area. R o driqu ez co n tinu edto p ro test beca use he did no t fee l s afe, and L ee info rm ed Ro driquez that he wou ld “s ee wh at [h e] can d o .” (A p p . 2 2 9 a.) Dur i ng Ro dr i qu e z ’ s s hi ft , two pr i s on e r s —B r and onCo tt l e andSh awn Pend le ton—were deta ined in the CCT V sec ti on ’s Cell 8, a “ suic ide c el l” covered i n cle ar pl e xi gl a s s that

a l l ow e d o ff

i c e r s t o o bs e rve the a c t i on s of the de t a i ne e s i ns i de the c e l l . As Ro driquez tri ed to do paperwork, Co tt le m ade r epeate d request s for wate r. Ro driquez in itially ig n o redC o ttle’s requ ests, b u t u ltim ately ag reedto p ro v id e C o ttle w ith w ater. On a c c ount

of the c e l l ’ s de s i gn, Rodr i que z wa s unabl e t o s l i p wa t e r thr ough the food i nt ake s l ot , and ha d t o ope n the c e l l door t o gi ve the wa t e r

t o Cott l e . Be for e he ope ne d the door , Rodr i que zor de r e d Cott l e ’ s c e l l m at e , Pe ndl e t on, t o s i t down; Pe ndl e t on r e fus e d t o c om

pl y at fi r s t , but e ve nt ua l l y s at . Aft e r

Rodr i que z ope ne d the door and gave Cott l e the wa t e r , Pe ndl e t on “ c am e out of nowhe r e ” and s t ood i n the c e l l doorway . ( App. 233a . ) Rodr i que z or de r e d Pe ndl e t on t o go ba c k i nt o the c e l l , Pe ndl e t on r e fus e d, and a strugg le betwee n the two m en ensued. During the conf rontat ion, Pend le ton p ic ked- 4-

R o driqu ez up an dth rew h im in to th e b ars o f

th e cell, cau sin g R o driqu ez m o m en tarily to lo se co n scio u sn ess. E v en tu ally , O f f icer H o ld en arriv edan d , in an ap p aren t ef f o rt to c ont a i n the s i t

uat i on, s hut

the s l i di ng door , l oc ki ng Rodr i que z i n the c e l l wi th Cott l e and Pe ndl e t on. Fi na l l y , Pe ndl e t on r e l e a s e d Rodr i que z , and Rodr i que z wa s abl e t o e xi t the c e l l . Rodr i que z s us t a i ne d s e ve r e i njur i e s a s ar e s ul t of the att a c k. R o driqu ez co mm en cedth is law su it in A u g u st 2 0 0 7 , assertin g th at th e C ity vi ol at e d hi s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oc e s s r i ght s by c r e at i ng the dange r ous e m pl oy m e nt c ondi t i ons t o whi c h he wa s e xpos e d. The Ci ty m ove d for

s umm ary judgm e nt . The Di s tr i c t Court gr ant e d the m ot i on, c onc l udi ng tha t “ a gove rnm e nt

e m pl oy e r owe s no c ons t i t ut i ona l obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de i t s e m pl oy e e s wi th m i ni m

um l e ve l s of s a fe ty

and secu rity in th e w o rkp lace,” (A p p . 4 a) (citin g , in ter alia, C o llin s v . C ity o f H ark er H eig h ts, 50 3 U .S. 115 , 127 (199 2)), and that Rod ri qu ezhad f ai le d to p rove that

a m un ic ipal p o licy o r cu sto m

h adcau sedh is in

j u ries. R o driqu ez to o kth is tim ely ap p eal. II. The Di s tr i c t

Court ha d jur i s di c t i on pur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and we have jur i s di c t i on unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1291. W e r e vi e w agr ant of s umm ary

judgm e nt de novo, a

ppl yi ng the s am e s t andar d a s the di s tr i c t c ourt . Ant one l l i v. Ne w J e r s e y , 419 F .3 d2 6 7 , 2 7 2 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). S u mm ary j u d g m en t is ap p ro p riate if , v iew in g th e reco rdin the l ight m ost favorable to the non -m ov ant, ther e are no genu ine i ss ues of m at er ia l fac t and the m ov ant i s e ntit le d to j ud gm ent a s a m atte r of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) .- 5-

W e a gr e e wi th the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s c onc l us i on that

a l though “ [t ]he fa c t s of the case are in d eedu n f

o rtu n ate,” th ey

d o n o t g iv e rise to a sub stan tiv e du e p ro cess claim agai nst t he City . ( Ap p. 3a.) We firs t obser ve that the Sup re m e Cou rt

has l on g h el d that “[n] ei ther the t ext nor the his tory

of the Due Proces s Cla

use s up po rt s . . . [a] clai m that the gove rnm e nt a l e m

pl oy e r ’ s duty

t o pr ovi de i t s e m

pl oy e e s wi th as a fe worki ng e nvi r onm e nt

i s as ubs t ant i ve c om

pone nt of the Due Pr oc e s s Cl aus e . ” Col l i ns , 503 U. S. at 1 2 6 . T h is h o ld in g stem s f ro m th e w ell-settledp rin cip le th at “th e D u e P ro cess C lau se doe s not i m pos e an a ffi rm at i ve obl i gat i on on the s t at e t o pr ot e c t i t s c i t i z e ns . ” Kauc he r

v. County of Buc ks , 455 F. 3d 418, 431 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ( c i t i ng De Shane y v. W i nne ba go C o u n ty D ep t. o f S o cial S erv ices, 4 8 9 U .S . 1 8 9 , 1 9 5 -9 6 (1 9 8 9 )). As we have r e c ogni z e d, howe ve r , unde r the e xc e pt i on t o De Shane y known a s the s t at e - c r e at e d dange r

doc tr i ne , “ whe n s t at e author i ty i s a ffi rm at i ve l y

e m pl oy e d i n a m anner that i nj ures a c it iz en or re nd er s him m ore vulnerable to inju ry from another source than he or she wou ld have been in the abse nce of state inte rventi on ,” such a ffi rm at i ve c onduc t

m ay gi ve r i s e t o ac l a i m

unde r the Due Pr oc e s s Cl aus e . Br i ght v. W e s tm or e l and County , 443 F. 3d 276, 281 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ( i nt e rna l quot at i ons and ci tati on s om itte d, em

ph as is added); s ee al so Sanf ord v . Sti le s, 45 6 F .3d 2 98 , 304 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (u n d er th e state-createdd an g er d o ctrin e, “liab ility m ay attach w h ere th e state acts to create o r en h an ce a d an g er th at d ep riv es th e p lain tif f o f h is o r h er F o u rteen th Am e ndm e nt

r i ght t o s ubs t ant i ve due pr oc e s s ” ) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . To pr e va i l on aIn supp ort of h is cl ai m , Rod ri qu ezpo ints to a r eport pre pare d b y his e xp ert 3 w itn ess, R o o sev elt L . P o p lar, w h ich id en tif ies m u ltip le f ailin g s M r. P o p lar attrib u tes to the Cit y : t he City perm itte d m enta ll y

un st able pris on er s t o b e hou se d in a po orly desi gn ed suic ide c el l, it

fail ed to corr ec t i nadequ at e s ta ff ing in the CC TV se ct ion, it al lowed offi c e r s t o s t or e t a s e r s on adi ffe r e nt fl oor fr om the CCTV s e c t i on, and i t t ol e r at e d the sub -o p tim al p lacem en t o f a v id eo m o n ito r. (A p p . 2 0 9 a.)

- 6- state-createdd an g er claim , a p lain tif f m u st estab lishth e f

o llo w in g f

o u r elem en ts: (1 ) th e h arm

u ltim ately

cau sedw as f

o reseeab le an df

airly d irect; (2) a st at e a ct or ac te d w it

h a degree of c ulpabili ty that shocks the c on sc ie nce; ( 3) ar e l at i onsh i p be twe e n the s t at e and the pl a i nt i ff e xi s t e d s uc h that the pl a i nt i ff wa s afor e s e e abl e vi c t i m of the de fe ndant ’ s a c t s . . . ; and ( 4) as t at e a c t or

a ffi rm at i ve l y us e d hi s or he r author i ty i n away tha t c r e at e d a dang er to the c it iz en or that

re nd er ed the c it iz en m ore vulnerable to d an ger th an h adth e state n o t actedat all. B rig h t, 4 4 3 F .3 dat 2 8 1 (qu o tatio n s an df o o tn o tes o m itted ). A s in B rig h t, “w e f

in dit u n n ecessary

to co n sid er an y

th in g o th er th an th e f

o u rth es se ntia l e le m ent of a m er it orious st at e- cr eate d d anger cl ai m ,” id., beca use the re cord here in fail s t o sug gest

that the Cit y ’s affirm at ive use of

st at e a utho ri ty ca used the danger R o driqu ez en co u n tered . A t b ase, R o driqu ez’s claim tu rn s o n h is co n ten tio n th at th e C ity c ou l d h ave do ne m or e t o p r e ve nt dang e r ou s c i r c um s t anc e s fr om ar i s i ng i n the CC TV area, o r th at th e C ity

w as n eg lig en t in en f

o rcin g certain secu rity

m easu res th at w o u ld h av e e n h an c e do f

f i c e r s a f e ty. 3 Su ch contenti on s are insuff ic ie nt as a m atte r of law to es ta blis h that the City ’s a ffi rm at i ve e xe r c i s e of author i ty c r e at e d the dange r

t o whi c h Rodr i que z wa s e xpos e d.W e not e that Offi c e r Hol de n a ppe ar s t o have t ake n an a ffi rm at i ve a c t whe n he 4 lo ck edR o driqu ez in th e cell w ith P en d leto n . H o w ev er, H o ld en is n o t a d ef en d an t to th is a c t i on, and the r e i s no s ugge s t i on wha t s oe ve r fr om the r e c or d be for e us tha t i n c l os i ng th e d o o r to th e cell, h e w as actin g p u rsu an t to a m u n icip al p o licy

o r cu sto m . S ee M o n ell v. Dep’t of S oc. Ser

vs., 43 6 U .S. 658 , 691 (197 8).

- 7- Se e Kauc he r , 455 F3d at

433. W e have pr e vi ous l y c ons i de r e d s i m i l ar

att e m pt s by l i t i gant s t o “ r e c har a c t e r i z e [as t at e a c t or ’ s ] fa i l ur e s a s a ffi rm at i ve a c t i ons , ” and have co n sisten tly

h eldth at a p lain tif

f m u st sh o w m o re th an th e g o v ern m en t’s “f ailu re to pr e ve nt ” an i njury

i n or de r t o pr e va i l on as t at e - c r e at e d dange r c l a i m . Sanfor d, 456 F. 3d at 31 2 (qu otat ions om itte d); s ee Kaucher, 455 F 3dat 43 3 (em ploy ee ’s contenti on that

“ de fe ndant s fa i l e d t o a c t

a ffi r m at i ve l y t o i m pr ove c ondi t i ons at

the ja i l , ” a l though

“ fr am e [d] . . . i n t e rm s of a c t i ons a ffi rm at i ve l y c r e at i ng dange r ous c ondi t i ons and af f irm ativ ely

m isrep resen tin g d an g ers,” f ailedto estab lish th e af

f irm ativ e act element). R o driqu ez’s claim

b o ils d o w n to a ch arg e th at “[ t] h e city b reach edits du ty

o f care to . . . [hi m ] by fa i l i ng t o pr ovi de as a fe work e nvi r onm e nt , ” and, a s am att e r of l aw, s uc h a ch arg e d o es n o t su f

f ice to estab lish a du e p ro cess v io latio n . C o llin s, 5 0 3 U .S . at 1 2 8 . 4 We conclude, i n sum , that the Distri ct Co urt c orre ct ly

dete rm ined that

Ro driquez fail ed to p ro v e th at th e C ity

v io latedh is co n stitu tio n al rig h ts.

III. Fo r the fo re go ing rea sons, we wil l a ff ir m the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s grant of summ ar y j u d g m e n t i n f av o r o f th e C i ty.