Opinion ID: 1425563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Substantive due process violations

Text: S.S. also alleges that Model violated his right to be free from intrusions of his liberty without due process of law. Specifically, he contends that Model's failure to protect him from peer-on-peer harassment intruded upon his liberty interest to be free from psychological and bodily abuse. The district court initially construed his claim as a possible ADA violation sounding in substantive due process, but ultimately granted Model's motion for summary judgment on this claim, concluding that S.S. could not prevail under the state-created-danger exception to the general rule of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Service, 489 U.S. 189, 197, 200, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989). DeShaney holds that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause. Id. at 197, 109 S.Ct. 998. The district court concluded that S.S. had failed to show an affirmative act by Model that created substantive due process liability, and that, even if S.S. had succeeded in doing so, there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Model's response to the harassment was so egregious as to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense. Our analysis of S.S.'s ADA claims, set forth in Part II.C. above, fully supports the district court's determination on this issue.