Opinion ID: 3134602
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State-created Danger

Text: The plaintiffs alternatively argue that their substantive due process claim may be sustained on the theory that the defendants have “created and perpetuated a school environment that is dangerous to plaintiffs’ health and safety.” Pursuant to this theory, the plaintiffs seek a holding that the defendants owe them a duty, under the due process clause, to protect them from unsafe conditions in the schools by remedying these conditions. We note that the plaintiffs do not here assert that any act of the defendants has directly harmed an interest of the plaintiffs protected under the due process clause. Rather, the plaintiffs seek to impose a duty on the defendants to take action to protect the plaintiffs from these allegedly unsafe conditions. The plaintiffs are thus again attempting to use the due process clause to impose an affirmative duty on the defendants. The plaintiffs’ argument on this point is not entirely clear. The plaintiffs partially rely on cases addressing claims that the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities are so abhorrent that they violate the due process rights of the inmates. As the defendants point out, however, those cases address the state’s constitutional obligations to persons in its custody. See, e.g ., Jackson v. Duckworth , 955 F.2d 21, 22 (7th Cir. 1992) (prison conditions); Gary H. v. Hegstrom , 831 F.2d 1430 (9th Cir. 1987) (juvenile detention facility conditions); French v. Owens , 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1985) (prison conditions). As discussed above, children mandated to attend school by state law are not in the custody of the state as contemplated by these cases. The plaintiffs also rely on another line of cases. A number of federal courts of appeals have held that DeShaney recognized a second exception to the general rule that the due process clause does not impose affirmative obligations on the state. These cases hold that the due process clause imposes a duty on the state to protect or care for citizens when the state “affirmatively places a particular individual in a position of danger the individual would not otherwise have faced.” Reed v. Gardner , 986 F.2d 1122, 1125 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Dorothy J. v. Little Rock School District , 7 F.3d 729, 733 (8th Cir. 1993); D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School , 972 F.2d 1364, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992). In order to employ the “state-created danger” theory, the plaintiff must “plead facts showing some affirmative act on the part of the state that either created a danger to the plaintiff or rendered him more vulnerable to an existing danger.” (Emphasis in original.) Stevens v. Umsted , 131 F.3d 697, 705 (7th Cir. 1997); see also D.R. , 972 F.2d at 1374; Reed , 986 F.2d at 1125. Mere inaction by state actors, even in the face of a known danger, is not sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty on the part of the state under this theory. Stevens , 131 F.3d at 705; Reed , 986 F.2d at 1125. Although a number of decisions have recognized a “state- created danger” exception in some form, the plaintiffs cite to only a few cases which have held that a plaintiff could pursue a substantive due process claim on this theory. The claims made in those cases are quite unlike the claim made by the plaintiffs here. In L.W. v. Grubbs , 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1992), a nurse at a medium security custodial institution for young male offenders was raped by an inmate after her supervisors required her to work alone with the inmate, who was a known violent sex offender. The L.W. court held that the nurse could pursue a due process claim because the actions of the state defendants created the danger to which the nurse fell victim, a danger which would not otherwise have existed. L.W. , 974 F.2d at 122-23. In Wood v. Ostrander , 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989), police officers arrested a drunk driver and impounded his car, leaving the driver’s passenger stranded in a high crime area in the middle of the night. The passenger was raped as she attempted to make her way home. The Wood court held that the passenger could pursue her constitutional claim against the defendant officer because his acts triggered a duty on his part to afford her “some measure of peace and safety.” Wood , 879 F.2d at 589-90. Likewise, in White v. Rochford , 592 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1979), (footnote: 0) the court sustained a due process claim where a police officer arrested the driver of a car and left several children stranded in the car on the side of a busy highway. In Kallstrom v. City of Columbus , 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998), the court held that the plaintiffs, undercover police officers, could pursue a due process claim under the state-created danger theory where the city released the plaintiffs’ personal information to counsel for criminal defendants whom the plaintiffs had aided in apprehending. The Kallstrom court reasoned that the city’s actions placed the officers in “special danger” that a private actor would deprive them of their liberty interest in personal security. Finally, in Ross v. United States , 910 F.2d 1422 (7th Cir. 1990), the court allowed the plaintiff’s due process claim to proceed against governmental defendants who affirmatively prevented people from rescuing the plaintiff’s drowning son. The court reasoned that, having placed the plaintiff’s decedent in that position, the defendants owed him a duty to provide rescue services. The plaintiffs also cite to Reed v. Gardner , 986 F.2d 1122 (7th Cir. 1993). In Reed , the court held that the plaintiffs could state a claim for a due process violation under allegations that the police arrested a sober driver and left a drunk passenger in the car, which passenger thereafter drove the car and caused a fatal accident with the plaintiffs. The Reed court also noted, however, that the plaintiffs would face an “insurmountable hurdle” on summary judgment because the record showed that the driver the police removed was not sober, as alleged, but was intoxicated. The court noted that, because of that fact, the state could not be liable because the state action did not place the plaintiffs in a position of danger they would not otherwise have faced. Reed , 986 F.2d at 1125. Here, the plaintiffs claim simply a due process right to a “safe environment,” and allege that certain unsafe conditions exist at various schools. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that “most” of the school buildings in the district are in “disrepair.” In support, the plaintiffs cite to fires and flooding which have occurred, the presence of asbestos, cracked and leaking roofs, faulty heating systems, unsanitary restrooms, burnt-out lightbulbs, malfunctioning windows and water fountains, fire hazards, pests, and cafeterias that serve cold and nonnutritious meals. The cited events occurred in various schools at various times over a time period encompassing the years 1989 through 1995. The plaintiffs blame each of these conditions on the District defendants’ failure to maintain the buildings in compliance with the School Building Code. Notably, the plaintiffs do not allege that any student has actually been injured by any of these conditions. Rather, the complaint asserts that classes have been canceled and that rooms or areas have been sealed-off as a result of these conditions. The plaintiffs’ allegations do not state a claim under the state- created danger theory. First, a review of the complaint reveals that the plaintiffs’ claim amounts to allegations that the defendants have failed to act to alleviate certain allegedly unsafe conditions. The plaintiffs charge that the state of disrepair existing at some of the schools is due to the “neglect” of the defendants, namely, the defendants’ failure to take measures to address or alleviate the alleged hazardous conditions. As discussed above, those decisions recognizing the “state-created danger” theory require the state actors to have taken affirmative action to place the plaintiff in a position of danger from which the state actors then failed to protect the plaintiff. See Stevens , 131 F.3d at 705; Graham v. Independent School District No. I-89 , 22 F.3d 991, 995 (10th Cir. 1994). Mere inaction is not enough. Stevens , 131 F.3d at 705; Reed , 986 F.2d at 1125. Here, the plaintiffs are alleging, at most, inaction on the part of the defendants in allowing these conditions to develop or persist. Further, the only injury resulting from these conditions cited by the complaint is class time that was lost because the defendants canceled classes or cordoned-off rooms or areas. The complaint thus pleads that the defendants in fact took steps to protect the plaintiffs from physical harm from these conditions. Absent allegations that the defendants took affirmative action to create or increase the danger and then failed to reasonably respond to protect the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have not stated a claim under the state-created danger theory. In addition, the mere fact that some District school buildings are in disrepair cannot be found to state a substantive due process claim. The due process clause “does not transform every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation.” DeShaney , 489 U.S. at 202, 103 L. Ed. 2d at 263, 109 S. Ct. at 1006. The plaintiffs’ claim in this regard is analogous to the claim rejected by the Supreme Court in Collins v. City of Harker Heights , 503 U.S. 115, 117 L. Ed. 2d 261, 112 S. Ct. 1061 (1992). In that case, the widow of a deceased city employee brought an action alleging that the city violated her husband’s substantive due process rights as a result of his death by asphyxia when he entered a manhole to unstop a sewer line. The plaintiff alleged that the city, although cognizant of the hazards of working in sewer lines and manholes, did not train its employees about those hazards, did not provide safety equipment at jobsites, and did not provide safety warnings. The plaintiff claimed that the city deprived her husband of life and liberty by failing to provide him with a “reasonably safe work environment.” Collins , 503 U.S. at 125-26, 117 L. Ed. 2d at 273, 112 S. Ct. at 1069. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to bring her claim within the purview of the due process clause. The Court reasoned that “[n]either the text nor the history of the Due Process Clause supports petitioner’s claim that the governmental employer’s duty to provide its employees with a safe working environment is a substantive component of the Due Process Clause.” Collins , 503 U.S. at 126, 117 L. Ed. 2d at 274, 112 S. Ct. at 1069. The Court added: “Petitioner’s claim is analogous to a fairly typical state-law tort claim: The city breached its duty of care to her husband by failing to provide a safe work environment. Because the Due Process Clause ‘does not purport to supplant traditional tort law in laying down rules of conduct to regulate liability for injuries that attend living together in society,’ [citation], we have previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort law.” Collins , 503 U.S. at 128, 117 L. Ed. 2d at 275, 112 S. Ct. at 1070. See also Dorothy J. , 7 F.3d at 733 (holding that plaintiff’s allegation that school officials failed to protect students from a known violent student is the kind of “traditional tort law” claim that the Supreme Court has refused to translate into a due process violation); Maldonado v. Josey , 975 F.2d 727, 733 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that “the Due Process Clause ‘does not transform every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation’ ” in rejecting plaintiff’s due process claim based on her child’s accidental death in school cloakroom), quoting DeShaney , 489 U.S. at 202, 103 L. Ed. 2d at 263, 109 S. Ct. at 1006. As in Collins , the claim made by the plaintiffs here, that the conditions in the schools are unsafe, is not a substantive due process claim. Rather, the plaintiffs are simply attempting to use the due process clause to “supplant traditional tort law.” The plaintiffs contend that Collins is distinguishable because the decedent employee in that case had voluntarily chosen to work for the city. In contrast, the plaintiffs assert, they are forced by state law to attend school. Again, the plaintiffs are attempting to merge the two DeShaney exceptions, “custody” and “state-created danger,” to support their theory that substantive due process obligates the state to provide a “safe and adequate education.” We have already held that the plaintiffs’ liberty is not so restricted by compulsory education that a duty to provide affirmative protections or services arises under the due process clause pursuant to the “custody” exception. The cases cited by the plaintiffs for the proposition that the state-created danger theory has been applied in the school setting are inapposite. In both Doe v. Taylor Independent School District , 15 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 1994), and Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District , 882 F.2d 720 (3d Cir. 1989), the plaintiff-students were sexually abused by teachers. Thus, in both cases, the plaintiff was injured directly by the acts of a state actor and the DeShaney exceptions were not applicable. See Doe , 15 F.3d at 451 n.3 (noting that DeShaney does not suggest that individuals have no due process rights against an offending state actor); Stoneking , 882 F.2d at 725 (stating that nothing in DeShaney suggests that state officials may escape liability arising from direct harm caused by the actions of state actors). Likewise, in Waechter v. School District No. 14–030 , 773 F. Supp. 1005, 1009 (W.D. Mich. 1991), the defendant school official’s affirmative action caused a student’s death. As noted earlier in this opinion, there is a significant difference between using the due process clause as a source of protection from deprivation of liberty interests by the government, and using it as a source of rights to governmental services. The plaintiffs here seek to use the clause to impose an affirmative duty on the defendants. None of the cited cases, however, involved the imposition of an affirmative duty on the state pursuant to the due process clause. Accordingly, the cases that have imposed an affirmative obligation on the state under the due process clause based on a “state-created danger” theory are not applicable here.