# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 15 40

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Tam el a Mo nt go m ery,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt ,

v.

Ci ty of Am es ; Su zan ne Owens , in di vi du al ly and in he r of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as a Law Enfo rcem en t Offi cer f

or th e Ci ty of Am es Po li ce Dep art m en t; Heat h R op p, in di vi du al ly and in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a Law Enf or cem en t Offi cer f

or th e Ci ty of Am es Po li ce Dep art m en t; Ch ris ti ne Cri pp en , in di vi du al ly and in he r of fic ia l
cap aci ty as a Law Enf

or cem en t Offi cer fo r th e Ci ty of Am es Po li ce Dep art m en t; Jo hn Doe, i nd iv id ua ll y

an d i n h is off

ic ia l ca pa ci ty as a Law Enf or cem en t Offi cer fo r th e Ci ty of Am es Po li ce Dep art m en t; Sta te of I owa ; J oh n B al dwi n, i nd iv id ua ll y

an d i n h is off

ic ia l ca pa ci ty as Dire ct or of t he Iowa Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s; Cu rt F or be s R es id en ti al Cen te r; J oh n M cPh ers on , in di vi du al ly and in hi s o ffi ci al

cap aci ty as Man ag er o f Cu rt F or be s R es id en ti al Cen te r,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

12 , 20 16 Fil ed : J ul y

20 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ang en al do Bai le y se rio us ly in jure d Tam el a Mo nt go m ery whe n he br ok e in to he r ho us e an d sh ot he r se ve ral ti m es be fo re ki ll in g hi m se lf. At th e ti m e, Bai le y was

a res id en t of th e Cu rt Fo rb es Res id en ti al Cen te r, a ha lfwa y ho us e faci li ty op erat ed by
th e St at e of Io wa in Am es

. Mo nt go m ery su ed th e Ci ty of Am es , se ve ral Am es po li ce of fic ers , th e Cen te r, Jo hn McP he rs on (th e Cen te r’s m an ag er), th e St at e of Io wa, an d
Jo hn Bal dwi n (th e di rect or of th e Io wa Dep art m en t of Corre ct io ns ). W e pr ev io us ly
affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e Ci ty of Am es an d it s
po l i c e o f

fic ers an d rem an de d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs on th e ot he r cl ai m s. Mon tg ome ry v. Ci ty of Ames
, 74 9 F.3 d 68 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). On rem an d, th e di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t fo r McP he rs on , Bal dwi n, th e Cen te r, an d th e St at e. 1

Mo nt go m ery ap pe al s t ha t o rd er, an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

As we are rev ie win g a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, we de sc rib e th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Mo nt go m ery. Bai le y ha d a hi st or y of ab us in g Mo nt go m ery. On Nov em

be r 12
, 20 08
, Bai le y was arre st ed f o r d o mes t i c ab us e aft er he as sa ul te d
Mo nt go m ery. Sh e st at ed th at Bai le y ha d st ru ck he r in th e face
, st art ed to st ran gl e he r,

an d th reat en ed to ki ll he r. The fo ll owi ng da y , an Io wa st at e co ur t is su ed an or de r of

pr ot ect io n p ro hi bi ti ng Bai le y fro m co nt act in g M on tg om ery.

Bai le y di so be y ed th e or de r an d co nt in ue d to co nt act Mo nt go m ery. In Feb ru ary 20 09
, au th or it ie s arre st ed Bai le y at Mo nt go m ery’ s res id en ce in Am es

. Bai le y , arm ed
wit h a ba se ba ll ba t, ret ur ne d th e fo ll owi ng da y , sl ap pe d Mo nt go m ery, an d th reat en ed

to rap e he r. Po li ce arre st ed Bai le y an d br ou gh t hi m to jail

. Afte r he was pl aced in a

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , no w Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-ho ld in g cel l, Bai le y hi t hi s he ad ag ai ns t th e wall s an d tri ed to wrap hi s be lt aro un d hi s

ne ck in an ap pa ren t at te m pt to ha rm hi m se l f

. Th e n e x t m on th
, aft er hi s rel eas e, Bai le y fo rced a do or op en at Mo nt go m ery’ s res id en ce an d th reat en ed to ki l l h e r. Mo nt go m ery to ld po li ce th at if th ey di d no t cat ch Bai le y , sh e be li ev ed th at he wou ld

co m e ba ck an d at ta ck he r. Po li ce arre st ed Bai le y on ch arg es of ag gr av a te d
in te rfer en ce wi th off

ic ia l ac ts an d t hi rd -d eg ree b ur gl ary.

A n Io wa st at e co ur t is su ed a se co nd or de r of pr ot ect io n in Ju ne 20 09 , n ot in g th at Bai le y

pre vi ou sl y

ha d b een co nv ic te d o f a d om es ti c ab us e as sa ul t. Des pi te th e

or de r, Mo nt go m ery’ s ne ig hb or s rep or te d s e e in g Bai le y dr iv e by Mo nt go m ery’ s

res id en ce in Ju ly 20 09

. By th en , Bai le y ha d be en rel eas ed fro m jail an d was as si gn ed

to res id e at th e Cu rt Fo rb es Res id en ti al Cen te r in Am es

. Bai le y co nt in ue d to co nt act
Mo nt go m ery in Sep te m

be r 20 09

.

On Sep te m

be r 28
, 20 09
, Mo nt go m ery cal le d th e Ames po li ce. Mo nt go m ery in fo rm ed an of

fic er, Jo hn Mu el le r, th at Bai le y was co nt act in g he r an d co m in g to he r

res id en ce, in vi ol at io n of t h e p r o te ct iv e or de r. Mu el le r in fo rm ed Mo nt go m ery th at he wou ld lo cat e Bai le y an d ta lk wit h h i m a b o u t t he si tu at io n. Mu el le r wen t to th e Cen te r an d sp ok e wit h a pr ob at io n of fic er. The pr ob at io n of

fic er to ld M u e l le r th at Bai le y ha d “ st ep pe d ou t,” an d th at Bai le y m ig ht be fo un d at a lo cal wor kf or ce de ve lo pm en t o ffi ce.

Mu el le r wen t to th e wor kf or ce of fic e, fo un d Bai le y , an d di sc us se d
Mo nt go m ery’ s co m

pl ai nt ag ai ns t Bai le y

. Bai le y cl ai m ed th at Mo n t g o mery ha d

co nt act ed hi m by t el ep ho ne

. Mu el le r warn ed Bai le y no t to co nt act Mo nt go m ery in

an y way , an d Bai le y pr om is ed no t to do so

. Mu el le r th en ret ur ne d to Mo nt go m ery’ s

res id en ce an d in fo rm ed he r of Bai le y ’s st at em en ts

. Mo nt go m ery ad m it te d th at sh e

re c e n t l y h a d cal le d Bai le y

. Mu el le r warn ed he r no t to m ak e su ch cal ls an d th en de pa rte d.

-3

-Aro un d th e sa m e ti m e th at Mo nt go m ery cal le d t he po li ce, s he als o c on ta ct ed

th e C en te r. Sh e to ld an un id en ti fie d m an who an swe red th e te le ph on e th at sh e fel t th reat en ed by Bai le y

. Sh e req ue s t e d th at th e Cen te r no t al lo w Bai le y to le av e on

ou ti ng s b ecau se he was c on ta ct in g h er wh en he lef t t he faci li ty.

Bai le y ret ur ne d to th e Cen te r fro m th e wor kf or ce of fic e. Late r th at aft ern oo n, Bai le y was al lo wed to le av e th e Cen te r to go sh op pi ng at W al m art

. At arou nd 5: 00

p.m ., po li c e rece iv ed rep or ts fro m Mo nt go m ery’ s ne ig hb or s th at Bai le y ha d be en rid in g hi s bi cy cl e aro un d th e ne ig hb or ho od

. Bai le y ret ur ne d to th e Cen te r. At 7:5 0

p.m ., Bai le y was al lo wed to le av e to go to a Hy -Vee st or e fo r on e ho ur

. W he n Bai le y di d no t ret ur n by 8: 50 p.m ., a st aff m em be r a t t h e C e n t e r c al le d th e po li ce to fil e a “ru n r e p or t” on Bai le y

. Rat he r th an ret ur n to th e Cen te r, Bai le y br ok e in t o Mo nt go m ery’ s ho m e, sh ot he r, an d th en sh ot hi m se lf. Mo nt go m ery su st ai ne d se rio us in juri es fro m

gu ns ho t wo un ds

.

Mo nt go m ery br ou gh t su it
, al le gi ng co ns ti tu ti on al du e pr oc es s cl ai m s an d st at el a w ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e Ci ty, se ve ral po li ce of fic ers , th e Cen te r, J o h n McP he rs on (th e m an ag er of th e Cen te r), th e St at e of Io wa, an d Jo hn Bal dwi n (th e di rect or of th e Io wa Dep art m en t of Co rrec t i o n s )

. Th e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m ag ai ns t
McP he rs on al le ge d th at he act ed wit h de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to Bai le y ’s hi st o ry of
vi ol at in g pr ot ect iv e or de rs an d th us vi ol at ed Mo nt go m ery’ s du e pr oc es s r i g ht to bo di ly in te gr it y

. Mo nt go m ery fu rth er al le ge d th at Bal dwi n, th e Cen te r, an d th e St at e ha d m ai nt ai ne d “ of

fic ia l po li ci es

. . . of fai li ng to pr ev en t in di vi du al s in cu st od y fro m vi ol at in g pr ot ect iv e or de rs ” an d “ fai le d to es ta bl is h an ad eq ua te an d su ffi ci en t po li cy

. . . fo r tra in in g su pe rv is or s an d of fic ers wit hi n th e Dep art m en t an d Cen te r rel at in g
to in di vi du al s i n c us to dy vio la ti ng pro te ct iv e o rd ers .”

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r al l de fen da nt s. W e affi rm ed
th e jud gm en t in fav or of th e C it y an d it s po li ce of fic ers

. Bec au se Mo nt go m ery d id

no t ha ve no ti ce th at th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld co ns id er gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t fo r

-4

-th e ot he r de fen da nt s, we rem an de d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs on th e rem ai ni ng cl ai m s.

Mon tg ome ry , 74 9 F.3 d at 69 7. On rem an d, th e di st ric t co u r t g r an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r McP he rs on , Bal dwi n, th e Cen te r, an d th e St at e on th e fed eral cl ai m s,

an d di sm is se d th e rem ai ni ng st at e-l aw cl ai m s wit ho ut pr ejudice. The co ur t co nc lu de d
th at Mo nt go m ery pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to es ta bl is h a co ns ti t u ti on al
vi ol at io n.

W e rev ie w th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Mo nt go m ery. And er so n v. Li be rt

y Lo bb y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 24 2,
25 5 (1 98 6)

. W e m ay up ho ld a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t fo r an y reas on su pp or te d by the reco rd

. Bis ho

p v . Gla zi er , 72 3 F .3d 95 7, 9 61 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

II.

Th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t pr ov id es th at “[n ]o
St at e sh al l

. . . de pr iv e an y pe rs on of li fe, li be rty, or pr op ert y , wit ho ut du e pr oc es s of
la w.” “ The Cl au se is ph ras ed as a li m it at io n on th e St at e’s p owe r to act , no t as a
gu aran te e of cert ai n m in im al le ve ls of sa fet y an d se cu rit y .” DeS ha ne y v. W in ne ba go Ct y. Dep ’t of So c. Se rv s. , 48 9 U.S. 18 9, 19 5 (19 89 ). As a ge ne ral m at te r, th eref or e,

“ a St at e’s fai lu re to p r o t e c t a n in di vi du al ag ai ns t pr iv at e vi ol en ce 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 C la us e.” Id

. at 1 97

.

Mo nt go m ery rel ie s on on e reco gn iz ed ex cep ti on to th is ge ne ral ru le

. A St at e

o w e s a du ty to pr ot ect a ci ti zen “ whe n th e st at e affi rm at iv el y pl aces a pa rti c u l a r in di vi du al in a po si ti on of da ng er th e in di vi du al wou ld no t ot he rwis e ha ve face d.”
Gre go ry v. Cit

y o f Ro ge rs , 9 74 F.2d 10 06 , 10 10 (8t h C ir. 1 99 2) (en ba nc ); se e K.B.

v. W ad dl e , 76 4 F.3 d 82 1, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). To su ccee d un de r t h i s th eo ry , a pl ai nt iff m

us t pr ov e th at th e de fe n d a nt affi rm at iv el y crea te d a si gn ifi can t ris k of

se rio us , i m

m ed ia te , a nd p r o xi m at e ha rm , t ha t th e ris k was ob vi ou s or kn own to th e de fen da nt , th at th e de fen da nt act ed reck le ss ly in co ns ci ou s di sr eg ard of th e ris k, an d

-5

-th at th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t “ sh oc ks th e co ns ci en ce.” Har t v. Ci ty of Li tt le Roc k
, 43 2
F.3 d 80 1, 80 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Mo nt go m er y a r gu es th at th e de fen da nt s crea te d or in crea se d a da ng er to he r by au th or iz in g Bai le y to le av e th e Cen te r to vi si t th e Hy

Vee, des pi te hi s hi st or y of vi ol en ce and Mo nt go m ery’ s cau ti on ary te le ph on e cal l to
th e Cen te r ear li er i n t he da y

.

As to Mo nt go m ery’ s cl ai m ag ai ns t McP he rs on , th e m an ag er of th e Cen te r, we

se e se ve ral sh or t c o mi n g s

. Fi rs t, th ere is no ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at McP he rs on kn ew ab ou t Bai le y ’s hi st or y of ab us in g Mo nt go m ery or Mo nt go m ery’ s te le ph on e cal l

to th e Cen te r o n t he aft ern oo n of th e sh oo ti ng

. Mo nt go m ery ci te s an Io wa st at ut e di rect in g a co un ty atto rn ey to gi ve th e di rect or of t he jud ic ia l d is tri ct de pa rtment o f

co rrec ti ona l se rv ic es “ a de ta il ed st at em en t of th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e cri m e co m

m it te d an d th e reco rd an d hi st or y of th e de fen da nt as m ay be kn own to th e co un ty at to rn ey .” Io wa Co de § 90 7.8 (3 ). Bu t th e reco rd do es no t in cl ud e
te st im on y or do cu m en ts sh owi ng wha t th e rel ev an t co un ty a t t o rn ey ga ve to th e di rect or in McP he rs on ’s jud ic ia l di st ric t or wha t th e di rect or ga ve to McP he rs on

. Nor
is th ere ev id en ce th at th e un id en ti fie d m an at th e Cen te r wit h who m M o n t go m ery
sp ok e by te le ph on e in th e aft ern oo n co m m un ic at ed to McP he rs on a b o u t
Mo nt go m ery’ s co nc ern fo r he r sa fet y

. McP he rs on can no t be he ld li ab le un de r § 19 83
fo r co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns of a su bo rd in at e ba se d on a re sp on de at su pe ri or th eo ry

. Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l
, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 6 (2 00 9)

. Neg li ge nc e or ev en gr os s ne gl ig en ce is
in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a vi ol at io n of th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se

. Dan ie ls v. W il li ams , 47 4 U.S. 32 7, 32 8 (1 98 6) ; Har t , 43 2 F.3 d at 80 5. Mo nt go m ery m us t pr es en t

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow th at McP he rs on , th ro ug h hi s own a c t i o n s , vi ol at ed th e Co ns ti tu ti on . That pro of is lac ki ng he re.

Seco nd
, as th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed
, th ere is al so in su ffi c ie nt ev id en ce to sh ow th at McP he rs on ’s su bo rd in at es at th e Cen te r were de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to a kn own or ob vi ou s s u b s t a nt ia l ris k of ha rm to Mo nt go m ery whe n th ey au th or iz ed
Bai le y to vi si t th e Hy -Vee. Th e Cen te r’s em pl oyees di d no t kn ow whe th er Bai le y

-6

-rece nt ly ha d vi ol at ed th e or de r of pr ot ect io n by co nt act in g Mo nt go m ery. The Am es

Po li ce Dep art m en t was in ve st ig at in g a rep or t fro m Mo nt go m ery th at Bai le y ha d
vi ol at ed th e no -co nt act or de r. Bu t th at in ve st ig at io n was in pr og res s, an d th e po li ce ha d rece iv ed co nf

li ct in g in fo rm at io n ab ou t whe th er Bai le y or Mo nt go m ery ha d
i ni ti at ed th e fo rb id de n co nt act

. Mo nt go m ery ev en tu al ly ad m it te d th at s h e h a d

co nt act e d B a il ey

. Nor
, as th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d, is th ere ev id en ce th at th e Cen te r’s em

pl oyees were de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to Mo nt go m ery’ s well be in g. The

reco rd do es no t sh ow th at th e un kn own st aff m em be r who au th or iz ed Bai le y to vi si t th e Hy -Vee co ns ci ou sl y

di sr eg ard ed a kn own or o bv io us ris k t o M on tg om ery.

Th i rd
, Mo nt go m ery ha s no t es ta bl is he d th at McP he rs on or em pl oyees of t h e Cen te r crea te d a ne w da ng er to Mo n t g o mer y o r in crea se d th e da ng er th at Bai le y
po se d to Mo nt go m ery, be cau se th e da ng er to Mo nt go m ery ex is te d b e f o r e Bai le y

res id ed at th e Cen te r an d wou ld ha ve co nt in ue d to ex is t th erea fte r. All owi ng Bai le y
to vi si t th e Hy -Vee di d no t crea te a gr eat er ris k to Mo nt go m ery th an wha t sh e wou ld
ha ve face d if Bai le y ha d ne ve r be en as si gn ed to th e Cen te r in th e fir st pl ace. Se e S.S

.

v. McMu ll en , 22 5 F.3 d 96 0, 96 2- 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (en ba nc ). Tha t Bai le y was ab le

to le av e th e Cen te r du rin g th e ev en in g of Sep te m be r 28 si m

pl y pl aced Mo nt go m ery ba ck in th e sa m e si tu at io n th at sh e oc cu pi ed be fo re Bai le y was in cu st od y or res id ed

at th e ha lfwa y ho us e. Mo nt go m ery was no t an in st it ut io na li zed pe rs on to who m th e St at e owe d a du ty, cf

. Y ou ng be rg v. Romeo
, 45 7 U.S. 30 7, 31 7 (1 98 2)
, an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s reject ed t h e n o t i on th at a St at e ha s an affi rm at iv e du ty,

en fo rcea bl e th ro ug h th e Due Pro ces s Clau se , to pro te ct an id en ti fie d vi ct im whe n it
kn ows th at a pe rs on in cu st od y po se s a sp eci al da ng er to th at vi ct im

. DeS ha ne y , 48 9
U.S. at 19 7- 98 & n.4

. Mo nt go m er y h a s n o t pr es en te d ev id en ce co m pa rab le to th e al le ga ti on s in W

el ls v. W al ker
, 85 2 F.2 d 36 8, 37 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ), whe re st at e of fic ia ls

to ok act io n un de r st at e la w to pr ov id e po st -rel eas e tra ns po rta ti on fo r a pr is on er, us ed

a ci ti zen ’s st or e as th e cl os es t co m m erci al tra ns po rta ti on pi ck -u p po in t, an d th us affi rm ative ly pla ce d the ci ti zen in a “ un iq ue , co nf ro nt at io na l en co un te r” wit h a pe rs on kn own to ha ve ex hi bi te d v io le nt pro pe ns it ie s.

-7

-Mo nt go m ery’ s cl ai m ag ai ns t Bal dwi n, th e di rect or of th e Io wa Dep art m en t of

Co rrec ti on s, al so fai ls fo r in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. Bal d w i n ha d no pe rs on al
in vo lv em en t wit h ev en ts at th e Cen te r, an d he can no t be he ld li ab le un de r a

re sp on de at su

pe ri or th eo ry

. Mo nt go m ery’ s co m pl ai nt al le ge d th at Bal dwi n fai le d to
im pl em en t app ro pr ia te po li ci es or ad eq ua te ly to tra in em pl oyees who wor ke d at the
Cen te r, bu t be cau se th ere is in su ffi ci en t pr oo f of a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, Bal dwi n

can no t be li ab le on th es e th eo rie s. Se e C a r p e n t e r v

. Gag e , 68 6 F.3 d 64 4, 65 1 (8 th
Ci r. 20 12 ). The Elev en th Am en dm en t ba rs Mo nt go m ery’ s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e St at e

an d th e Cen te r, be cau se th e St at e an d it s ag en ci es are im m un e fro m su it s fo r da m ag es

. Que rn v. Jo rd

an , 44 0 U.S. 3 32 , 33 7 (1 97 9) ; Ede lma n v. Jo rd an , 4 15 U.S. 6 51 , 6 63 (1 97 5)

.

* * *

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-