Opinion ID: 2972016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State-Created Danger Test

Text: Under the “state-created danger” test, a Plaintiff may recover if she proves: 1) an affirmative act by the state which either created or increased the risk that the plaintiff would be exposed to an act of violence by a third party; 2) a special danger to the plaintiff wherein the state’s actions placed the plaintiff specifically at risk, as distinguished from a risk that affects the public at large; and 3) the state knew or should have known that its actions specifically endangered the plaintiff. Cartwright, 336 F.3d at 493 (citing Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1066 (6th Cir. 1998)).
For the purposes of this appeal, Appellant argues that several different affirmative acts establish the first prong of the Cartwright state-created danger test. First, Appellant argues that the IHRC’s removal of her deadbolt despite its knowledge that it had not properly accounted for all master keys was an affirmative act. JA at 55; Appellant Br. 35. Second, she argues that the IHRC’s failure to shorten the chain on her door, permitting unauthorized persons to enter the apartment 3 building (be they illegal residents or vagrants), and distributing master keys without keeping appropriate records, all constitute affirmative acts. Appellant Br. 35-36. We agree with the district court that most of these “acts” are more properly classified as omissions. Even if one of the handymen promised to shorten the chain (a promise neither the handymen nor the IHRC had an obligation to keep since, as Appellant admits, the chain was not permitted on the door in the first place1), and even if the IHRC and the employee Defendants were aware of some illegal living situations (children of tenants were sometimes illegally residing with parents who were tenants), or that master keys were not fully accounted for, Defendants’ failures to remedy those situations would still be more properly characterized as omissions or failures to act. This court has indicated that a “failure to act is not an affirmative act under the state-created danger theory.” Cartwright, 336 F.3d at 493.
Even if some of the remaining acts described by Plaintiff were affirmative acts, she must still prove that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. She can not meet this very high burden of proving that “the state knew or should have known that its actions specifically endangered the plaintiff.” Cartwright, 336 F.3d at 493 (citing Kallstrom, 136 F.3d at 1066). This court has previously held that to prove this last element of a state-created danger claim, a plaintiff must show deliberate indifference to the danger created by a defendant’s affirmative act, rather than merely 1 Chains were not permitted because they would prevent or delay access when elderly tenants required assistance. 2 Because the deliberate indifference prong is determinative of Appellant’s claim, we decline to address whether Appellant satisfies the second “special danger” prong of the state-created danger test. 4 proving negligence. Sargi, 70 F.3d at 912; Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492, 510-11 (6th Cir. 2002). Even a showing of gross negligence will not suffice to meet a Plaintiff’s burden in these types of cases. Gazette v. City of Pontiac, 41 F.3d 1061, 1066 (6th Cir. 1994). Rather, deliberate indifference is the appropriate standard when “circumstances allowed the state actors time to fully consider the potential consequences of their conduct.” Ewolski, 287 F.3d at 510 (quoting Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 373 (9th Cir. 1998)). The IHRC received the HUD directive to remove the deadbolt locks and then had to implement that directive, meaning that it had ample opportunity to consider the ramifications of the directive before implementing it. In addition, the record does not indicate that maintaining control over master keys and resident lists was an especially taxing or time-sensitive task. Thus, deliberate indifference is the appropriate standard in this case. Deliberate indifference, in this context, is akin to subjective recklessness “and requires the § 1983 plaintiff to show that the state ‘official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to [the victim’s] health or safety.’” Ewolski, 287 F.3d at 513 (footnote omitted) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)); Sperle v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d 483, 493 (6th Cir. 2002). “Pursuant to this definition, ‘the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.’” Sperle, 297 F.3d at 493 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837); Bukowski v. City of Akron, 326 F.3d 702, 711 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, to create a triable issue of fact, Appellant must present evidence that the state actors “knew or should have known that [their] actions specifically endangered the plaintiff” and that those actions occurred in disregard to Appellant’s health or safety. Cartwright, 336 F.3d at 493; Sperle, 297 F.3d at 493. 5 Appellant presented no evidence that would satisfy such a high standard. While this court might agree that removing the deadbolt before accounting for all master keys could constitute a negligent act, the deadbolt was removed at the direction of HUD to aid the IHRC in assisting its elderly residents in case of an emergency. Obviously, on the whole, the IHRC was attempting to decrease, rather than enhance, the level of danger to its elderly residents. In addition, while Plaintiff presented evidence that the City of Inkster, in general, has a high crime rate, Plaintiff presented no evidence that other crimes of a similar nature had previously occurred in the building or anywhere in the public housing complex that would make the IHRC aware of the potential for an assault such as Plaintiff suffered. Finally, none of the other acts that Plaintiff identified were undertaken with the requisite level of indifference. Because Appellant cannot prove that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference, the district court properly granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.