NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 21a0027n.06

No. 20-1332

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOANNA M. PERKIN; AMY L. GISH,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Joanna Perkin and Amy Gish (plaintiffs) sued Jackson

Public Schools under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Jackson violated their Fourteenth 

Amendment rights under the Due Process Clause. The district court granted summary judgment

to Jackson. We affirm.

Plaintiffs are teachers who worked at the Fourth Street Learning Center—a middle school 

that provides early intervention to students with behavioral or academic challenges. The Center 

provides specialized resources for these students and expressly bars the students themselves from 

engaging in “threatening behavior” toward a staff member. Yet plaintiffs allege that the Center 

presented a tempestuous environment for students and teacher alike. Each plaintiff alleges that 

students threatened her, and Gish claims that students purposely bumped into her and threw coins, 

food, and pencils at her, and verbally threatened to assault her. Plaintiffs allege that they repeatedly 
No. 20-1332, Perkin, et al. v. Jackson Public Sch.

-2-

asked Jackson to provide better security, but that Jackson ignored their complaints. Each plaintiff 

eventually chose to leave the Center and the employ of Jackson Public Schools.

Perkin and Gish thereafter brought this suit against Jackson, claiming under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 that Jackson violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to Jackson, holding that plaintiffs had 

neither alleged nor presented evidence that Jackson had violated their constitutional rights. We 

review that decision de novo. See Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 415, 421 (6th Cir. 2019).

Plaintiffs’ briefing leaves unclear what Due Process right, exactly, they claim Jackson 

violated. They do argue more generally, however, that Jackson ignored their complaints about 

conditions at the Center and that their claim arises “under the state created danger doctrine[.]” But

the Due Process Clause does not guarantee a right to a safe workplace. See Collins v. City of 

Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 117 (1992). And Jackson “has no constitutional duty to protect 

individuals who are not in its custody”—which obviously they were not. Jane Doe v. Jackson 

Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 954 F.3d 925, 932 (6th Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs therefore have not 

identified any right whose violation could support a claim under § 1983.

Plaintiffs offer (in many different formulations) just one counterargument: that Jackson’s 

“deliberate indifference” to the plight of the teachers at the Center was so bad as to “shock the 

contemporary conscience.” Id. at 933 (internal quotations omitted). Regrettable as the alleged 

conditions at the Center might have been, however, they are not analogous to having one’s stomach 

forcibly pumped. See Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952). We therefore agree with 

the district court that plaintiffs have not shown any entitlement to proceed with their § 1983 claim.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.