## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 3621 T ERI T A B UCH ANA N - M O O RE , E TAL ., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. C OU NTYOF MILWAUKEE , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:0 7-cv-00 73 0-CNC

— Charle s N . Cleve rt, Jr. , Judge
.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 26, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 29, 2009

Befo re B AUER, K ANNE an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . I n th e s u mm e r o f 2 0 0 6 , S i d n e y K. Gray, J r. , a m ental l y i l l m an, co m m i tte d a st ri ng o fcr i m es in M il w au kee w hich l an d ed him i nt o, then back ou t of, the M i l w aukee Count y j ai l

. The sho rtst ays and quick re l eas es f ro m co nfinem ent were al l ege dlythe re sul t o f bu reau cratic errors m ad e by m un ici p al agen t s . F urt he rm or e, al though G ra y’ s hi sto ryo fm entali l l ness w as know n t o M i l w aukee County a uthor i ti es, he was not adm i ni ste re d his m edi cati ons w hi l e co nfined. Retur ned2 N o. 08

- 3621
to the M i l w aukee st re ets fo r a fi nal ti m e o n J uly22 , Gr ay br o k e i nt o a ho m e o n th e ci ty ’ s no r th si d e. Frank M o o r e, a ne i g hb o r, unwi tt i ng l y c r o ss ed Gr ay ’ s path. Wh e n h e d i d , G r a y s h o ta n d k i l l e d h i m. M oo re ’ s s urvi vor s (Ap pel l ants) sued se ver alenti ti es in c lu d in g th e C ou n ty of M ilw au ke e, alle gin g, inp ar t, a depri vati on o fdue proc ess . The di str i ct c ourtgr anted Defe nd ants’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss on the pl eadi ngs, wh i ch w e a ffirm on ap p ea l.

I . B AC KGR OUND A ccor ding to the fa cts al l ege d i n the A pp el l ants’ o ri gi nal c om p l a i n t, G ra y w as w ell kn ow n to th e C ou n ty of M ilw au kee (Cou nt y) and to the C ity ofM il w au kee (City). H e was ar re ste d by Cityp ol i ce offi cer s at le ast35 tim es on 77 charg es between Ju ly 1996 and J uly20 06. M any o f th o se a r r es ts s te m m ed f r o m a ss au l ti ve a nd v i ole nt at ta c ks by G ra y; on e w as for c rim in al t re sp as s t o a d w elli ng. Graywas com m i tte d to the County M entalH ealth Com ple x num er ous t i m es and place d on pres c riptio n m edic atio ns. Overthe cour se ofhi s s tay s there , i t be

ca m e appa r en t to Co un ty do ct o r s th atthe medi ca ti o ns w ere su cce ssful i n red uc ing G ray’s assau lti v e beh avior; how ever, Gray d id n o t t a ke th e m ed ications w he n left uns upe r vi se d. Co ns eque nt l y, the Co unty fr eque nt l y c o ntact ed Gray’ s f am i l y m em ber s f ol l owing Gray’ s r el eas e. On June 1 3, 20 06, Graywas detai n ed by Citypol i ce afterswinging a gol f cl ub at byst anders. A t a ci vi l co m m i tmen th e a r i ng, Ci t y p o l i c e a nd Co un t y do c t o r s t e s t i fi edN o. 08

- 3621 3 that Gray posed an i m m ed iat e threa t t o othe rs bec ause of hi s a ssa ult i ve behavi or . The j ud ge agr eed, and or dered Gray com m i tte d. Less than a week l ater, the County r el ea se d Gr aywi thhi s ne ce ss ar y m ed ic at i o ns b utwi th

ou t con tact ing his fam il y. T he ne xt d ay, C ity p o lic e arre ste d G ra y fori nvading an occupie d hom e a nd to ok him t o the County j ai l

. A l though the County knew that Gray’ s a ssa ult i ve behavi orco uld co nti nue i fhe r em ai ned un med i c a t e d, Gr a y wa s n o ta dmi ni s t e r e d h i s p r e s cribed m edi cati ons. On June 2 4, 20 06, wh i l e Gra y r em ai ned i n custo dy, Ci ty Pol i ce Offi cerTer re nce Bender si gned a cri m i nal tr espass com pla i nt, drafted bythe Dist ric t Attor ney’ s Offi ce. Acco r di ngt o pr o to co l, the t as ko fphy si ca l l y de l i ve r i ng the c om pla i nt to be num b er ed and fi l ed w i th the st ate c ou rtres id ed w ith th e C ity p olic e . U n for tu n at ely , th is w as not done; the cour t nev err ecei ved the com pla i nt, and G ra y was r el eas ed by the County on J uly9, 20 06. Appr o x i ma t e l y o n e w e e kl a t e r, e s s e n t i a l l y th e s a me epi sode w as re peated. Grayag ain was ar re ste d by Ci ty po l i ce f o r i nv adi nga n o cc upi ed ho m e, pl ac ed i n the County j ai l, notadm i nist er ed hi s m edi cati on, and re

l eas ed f our days l ate r. I t i s unclear w hy char ges w er e no t fi l ed aga i nst Gra y. On Jul y 2 2, 20 06, Fr ank M oo re cr oss ed p at hs with Gra y an d l ost his l i f e. Gr ayha d b r o k eni nt o the ho m e ne xt d oor to M o o re’s by ki cking in th e front d oor. M oore wal k ed up to th e l o t l i ne i n th e smal l area sep ar at i ng the ho m es; Gra y e m er ged fro m the si de doorand shot M o o r e i n the h e a d.4 N o. 08

- 3621 The m i ssi ng cr i m i nal co m pla i nt fro m J une 24, 20 06, re surf aced i n A ugust 2 006. Appe l l a nt s b r o ughta c i v i l r i g ht s a c t i o n un de r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 19 83 a g ains t th e Ci ty, the Coun ty, Offi ce r Be nde r a nd oth er a n o ny m ou s em p loyees, all eging th at th ese act ors vi ol ate d M oo re ’ s s ubstanti ve du e pr oce ss ri ghts by pla ci ng M oo re i n a pos i ti on o f d an ger that he w oul d not ha v e o the r wi s e f a c e d. On J an ua r y 1 8, 20 08 , De fen dan ts move d f o rj udg m en t o n the pl ea d ings, a r g ui ngtha t th er e was no c o ns ti tu
ti onal ri ght to be prot ecte d fro m vi ol ence b y a pri vate ind ivi d ua l. On Sept em ber 15, 2008, th e d istri ct cou rt g r an te d the mot i o n. Appel l ants no w cha l l en g e o nl y the di s mi s s a l o fthe c ha r g e a l l e g i nga v i o l a t i o n o fc i v i l r i ghts by the Coun ty a s set f or th i n the com pla i nt. A pp el l ants conte nd tha t the Co un t y v i o l a t e d M o o r e ’ s c i v i l r i g ht s by r el ea sing Gr ay afte r a 72

- ho ur co nfi ne m en t dur i ng w hi c h the Co un t y f a i l e d t o p r o v i de p s y c hi a t r i c me dica

ti ons to G ra y. A ccor ding to A pp el l ants, tho se m edi cations w ou ld h ave q ue ll ed G r ay’s assau lti ve beh avior. I n s t e a d , b y d e n y i n gG r a y h i s n e e d e d me d i c a t i o n s , the Co un ty “ we a po ni z e d” a me nt a l l y i l l ma n a nd “ un l e a s he d” hi m o n the pub l i c, pr o xi m at el y c au singM o o r e’ s dea th

.

I I . DI S C US S I ON W e r evi ew a dist ri ct cour t’ s r uling o n a Rul e 1 2( c) m oti on for ju d g m en t o n th e p lea d in gs d e n ov o. N or t he r n Indi ana Gun an d Outd oorSh ows, Inc . v. Ci ty o f Sou t h Be nd, 16 3 F. 3d 449, 45 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98)

. Rule 12 ( c) perm its a par ty toN o. 08

- 3621 5

m ove f orj ud gm ent a fter t h e com pla i nt and answer hav e b e e n file d by th e p ar tie s. See F e d

. R
. C i v . P
. 1 2 ( c )

. We review Ru le 12( c) m otions by em p loyi ng the sam e stan d ard that ap p lies wh en r evi ew i ng a m oti on t o dism i ss f or failu re to st at e a cla im u n d er R u le 1 2(b )(6)

. P is ciott a v. O ld N a t. B a nc o rp, 499 F. 3d 629, 6 33 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)

. Thus, w e v i ew the f acts i n the c om p l ai nt i n the l i ght m ost f av o r ab l e to the n o nm o vingpa r tya nd wi l l g r an t th e m o ti o n “ o nl y i fi t appear s be y o nd do ubttha t th e pl aintiff c an n otp ro ve an y fa c t s t h atw ou ld su p p or t h is c laim f orr el i ef

. ” N or thern Indi ana Gun an d Outd oorSh ows, Inc ., 163 F.3d at 452 (i nt erna l q u otations om itted ). H ow ever, w e nee d no t i g no r e f ac ts s etf o r thi n the c o m pl aint that und er m i ne the pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m o r gi ve w ei ght t o u n su p p or te d co n c lu sio n s o f law

. Id

. T o s t a t e a cla im for re lief u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 19 83 , a pl aint i ffmusta l l eg e th at : ( 1) h e w as depr i ve d o fa r i g ht secur ed by the C on st itu ti on o r l aw s o fthe U ni ted S tat es; and (2 ) the depr iva ti on was vi si ted upon hi m by a perso n orper sons acting under co l oro fst ate l aw . K r a m er v. Vi l l ageof

Nor t h F ond du l ac, 3 84 F. 3d 856, 86 1 ( 7th C ir. 2004). The Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se o fthe Fourteenth Am en dm en t p laces a li m itation on th e state’s p ow er to ac t ; how ever, it ge n eral l y doe s no t i m pose up on the st ate a du ty to p ro te c t in d ivid u als from h ar m by p riv at e a c to rs . M onfils v. Tayl or

, 165 F.3d 511, 516 (7th Cir. 1998); K i n g v . E a st St. Lo uis S c h o o l D ist

. , 496 F.3d 812 , 817-18 (7th C ir. 20 07 )

. S ta te d anot he r w ay, i ts pur po se i s, “ to pr o te ctthe peopl e fro m the St ate , notto ensur e that the S tat e pr o-6 N o. 08

- 3621
tect [ s] them fro m ea ch oth er . ” D e Shan ey v . Wi nne b ago C o un ty D epa rtm ent o

f So cia l Serv ices , 489 U
. S. 189, 195 (1989 ). Tw o excepti ons to thi s princi ple have ar i sen fro m D eSh a ney . First, th e s ta te is d u t y - b ou n d to p ro te c t in d ivi du al s with w hom i t has a “speci alr el ati onshi p”; that i s, wh en a sta te has custo dy ove r a perso n, i t m ust pro tect h im be c au se n o a lte rn at e a ve n u es of a id ex ist
. M o nfils, 165 F. 3d at 516. S eco nd , the so- cal l ed sta te- cre ate d danger excep ti on pro vi des that“l i abi l i ty exi sts wh en the st ate af fi r mat i v e l y p l a c e s a p a r t i c ul a r i nd i v i du a l i n a p o s i ti on ofdangerth e ind i vi du alwould not othe rwis e hav e fac ed .” Id. ( i n t er n al q u ot at ion s o m itt ed ). I t is u n d er th is d o c t r i n e th a tA p p e l l a n t s a d v a n c e th e i r c l a i m. I n or der forthe D ue Pro cess Cl ause to i m pose up on the st a t e the du t y t o p r o t e c ti t s c i t i z e ns , the s t a t e , b y i ts affi rm ativ e acts, m ust cr eat e o r i ncre ase a danger f aced by an i nd i vi du al, Ki ng, 496 F .3d at 818, and the sta te’s f a i l ur e t o p r o t e c ttha ti nd i v i du a l fr o m s uc h a da nger mus tb e the p r o xi mat e c a us e o fthe i nj ur y t o the i nd i v i du al. Id. A nd l ast, “beca use the ri ght to p ro te cti on ag ains t st at e- cr ea te d da ng er s i s der i ve d fr o m the s ubs ta ntive com p one nt of th e D ue Proces s C lau s e , t he state’s f ai l ur e t o p r o te ctthe i ndi vi dualmusts ho ckthe c o nsci ence. ” Id

. W e need not e xplor e the fi rs t co m ponent o fA pp el l ants’ cl ai m under the st ate
- cre ate d danger doctr i ne be cause w e ca n re sol ve thi s case on the se cond prongo fthe anal ysi s. Appel l an ts ’ c o m pl aintmusta l l eg e f ac ts s ug g es ting that the County’ s conduct w as the proxi m at e cause ofM oo re ’ s death; thati s, M oo re m u st have been a f or e-N o. 08

- 3621 7

se ea b le v i c tim of th e C ou n ty ’s a c ts
. Kin g, 49 6 F

. 3d at 818. I t f ai l s t o do so

. T o a d va n c e t h eir arg u m en t, A p p ella n ts r e l y h ea vily o n R eed v . Ga rdn er, 986 F. 2d 1122 (7th Cir

. 19 93)

. In that ca se , a dr unkdr i ve r c r o ss ed th e cent erl i ne o fthe hi ghw ay and cras hed i nto the Ree ds’ car . Earl i erthat d ay, p oli ce h ad arreste d t he ori ginal driver of th e car, l ea vinga dr unkpa ss en g erb eh i nd. Ba se d o n the ap p ellant’ s a l l ega ti on that the o ffi cer s r em ove d a sober dri ver f ro m the dri ver ’ s sea t and know i ngly repla ced hi m wi tha n i nt o xi ca te d dr i ve r, we foun d tha t th e pl ainti ff s had suffi ci entl y s tat ed a c l ai m thatt h e sta te affi rm ati vel y cre ate d a danger f or the othe r dri ver s on th e roa d and that the pl ai nti ff s were f or ese eabl e v i cti m s. H owever, w e al so note d that for ese eabi l i ty hi nged on th e fact tha t th e d an gers p resen ted by d run k d rivers w ere f am i l i arand speci fi c; i n additi on, the thre at o f har m to othe r m oto ri sts was l i m i ted in bo th ti m e a nd sco pe. R eed, 986 F.2d at 1127. H ere, no su ch l im iti ng f acto rs ar e pr ese nt. I n the fact ua l s ce na r i o pr es en te d i n R eed, the pol i ce co ul d b e e xp e c t e d t o k no w tha t the i nt o xi c a t e d m an they pla ced b eh i nd the w heelsuffer ed fro m i m pai re d ju d g m en t and dim inished m otor skil ls; thes e w ere dangers bo th f am i l i arand speci fi c thatth e p oli ce c hose no t to he ed. I n thi s ca se , c o nv er se l y, the c o m pl aint does not al l ege f act s sugges ti ng tha t Gra y’ s a cces s t o a g u n, or p ro p en sit y t ow ar d h om icid e, w er e s p ec ific da ng e r s tha twe r e f a mi l i a r t o the Co un t y . Whi l e Gray had been a rr est ed f orhom e inv asi on a nd as saul ti ve8 N o. 08

- 3621

T he d istrict cou rt too k jud icial no tice of this f act. 1 conduc t, A pp el l ants do not al l ege thatGrayhad p re vi o us l y c ar r i ed a wea po n o r s ho t so m eo ne . As the dist ri ct c ourtnot ed, “Gray ’ s a cquis i ti on o fa gun, and i ts us e o n a n i nn ocen t bysta nd er” w ere even ts th at w ere “u n p re d ict ab le ra th er th an lega lly for es ee ab le.” Als o , i n R eed, th e p lain ti f f s w er e w ith in a sm all, defined gr oup ofp ote nti alvi cti m s. The drunk dri ver j eo par di ze d the s afety o fo nl y tho se mot o r i st s tr av el i ng on the sa m e hi gh w ay , a nd o nl y fora m att ero fhour s. W hen the dri verso ber ed up, the threa t would be di spel l ed. H er e, th e co m pl aint do es no t al l eg e f ac ts s ug g es ting th at G ray p osed a th reat to a d efina ble pop ulation. Da ng ers to the publ i c atl ar ge ar e in su ffi ci ent forco nsti tuti onal p u rp os es . M a rtinez v. Stateof Califor nia , 44 4 U.S

. 27 7, 28 5 ( 1 9 8 0 )

. T h e c o mpl a i n ta l l e g e s n o f a c t s s u g g e s t i n gth a tthe C ou n ty kn ew th at M oo re , a s d ist in gu ish ed fr om t h e p u b lic at large, f aced any sp ecial d an ger. A p p ella n ts alleg e t h at M oo re w as a for es e e a b l e vic tim b e c a u s e h e l i v e d o n Mi l wa uk e e ’ s “ n o r th s i d e , ” th e s a me sect i on o fto w n i n w hi ch the County r el eas ed Gray. Bu t M i l w aukee ’ s “ nor th si de” r epres ents a l ar ge geo gr aphic and heavi l y popul ate d are a. The dangerpose d 1 to M o o r e by hi s g eo g r aph i c l o ca l e was s ha r ed bythe thousands o fo ther s who l ived i n that sect i on o fto w n as w el l as tho se l i vi ng i n any com m unity a ccessib le to Gray byf oot, and pe r ha ps ev enb y pub l i c tr an si t. S ucha g en er al i zed, am or phous zone o fdangeri s insuffi ci ent t o tr i gge r a s tat e duty to prot ect.N o. 08

- 3621 9 F ur th er m o r e, unl i k e i n R eed, the d an gerwas not of l i m i ted durati on. To the exte nt Graypose d any f ores eeabl e dangerupo n h is re l eas e, i t was a danger that w as in d efin ite . G ra y’s m en ta l illn es s an d p ro p en sit y for cr im inal act s e xi ste d w i thout tem pora l bo und ar i es. A s the di str i ct c ourtnot ed , pro xi m ate cause “i s a f act speci fi c in q uir y, i nvol vi ng a consi derat i on o fti m e, geo gr aphy, r ange ofpote nti alvi cti m s, an d the nature of ha r m tha t o ccurred

. ” Pe r ha ps i t ca n b e sa i d tha t i fthe C o unty ha d no t r el ea se d Gr aywheni t di d, M oore w oul d be a l i ve today. H owever, the f acts a s a l l ege d am ount t o onl y a “but- f or ” ca sual l i nk, theydo notst ate a cl ai m thatM oo re ’ s death w as proxi m ate l y c aused by the County’ s a cts. M oo re ’ s death w as si m plyto o re m ote a co ns eque nc e o fthe Co unty ’ s action s to ho l d the C o u n ty r e s p o n s ib l e u n d e r th e fe d e r a l c i v i l r i g h t s l a w. Becau se rel i efco uld notbe gr anted under a ny se t o f f ac ts tha t co ul d b e pr o ve d con si st en t wi ththe a l l eg at i o ns in th e c om p lain t, A p p ella n ts ’ cla im m u st fail.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns se t fo rth abo ve, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s g ra nti ng o fthe County’ s m oti on t o dism i ss.

6- 29- 09