Opinion ID: 2973835
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Tanners’ claims as to Adams and Hunt

Text: To succeed on their claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officers Adams and Hunt, the Tanners must show that “(1) a person, (2) acting under color of state law, (3) deprived [them] of a federal right.” Berger v. City of Mayfield Heights, 265 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2001). The only element at issue in this case is the third—whether the Tanners have shown that Adams and Hunt violated the family’s substantive due process rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989), the Supreme Court held that “[a]s a general matter, . . . a State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.” There is an exception to this rule, however, when the plaintiff can demonstrate “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 v. City of Marine City, 336 F.3d 487, 493 (6th Cir. 2003). The Tanners rely on this “state-createddanger exception” in an attempt to show that their substantive due process rights were violated. According to the Tanners, Officers Adams and Hunt increased the danger to the family in three ways: by “(1) responding to the 911 call; (2) making their presence known to Baker when they blocked him in the Tanners’ driveway and pursued him up the driveway; and (3) t[aking] no further action by remaining in their vehicle as Baker walked towards the Tanner home with a loaded gun in sight.” Whether the officers in fact took no further action to protect the Tanners is far from clear. As set forth above, there are several conflicting sources of evidence on this point. The district court concluded that the officers did yell at Baker and pursued him on foot. In their brief, the Tanners contend that the district court erred in making these factual determinations as to what actions Adams and Hunt took after pulling into the driveway. They argue on appeal that Adams and Hunt “inexplicably simply sat and watched” as Baker approached the house with a loaded gun. Although there appears to be a genuine dispute as to whether Adams and Hunt “simply sat and watched” or whether they yelled at Baker and pursued him on foot, a closer examination reveals that the question is not material to the resolution of this case. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”). Even under the Tanners’ version of the facts, we are of the opinion that they have failed to satisfy the requirements of the state-created-danger exception. No. 05-1107 Tanner et al. v. County of Lenawee et al. Page 6 According to the Tanners’ version of the facts—that Adams and Hunt “simply sat and watched” as Baker approached the house—the only “affirmative acts” that the officers performed were responding to the 911 call and driving up the driveway. See Cartwright, 336 F.3d at 493 (holding that only affirmative acts of government officials can give rise to liability under the statecreated-danger exception). These acts allegedly trapped Baker in the driveway when he was otherwise leaving, causing the Tanners to argue that the officers increased the risk that Baker would harm the family. The Tanners’ argument fails for two reasons. First, the state-created-danger exception has never been extended to cover situations where the police simply respond to the scene of a 911 call (including pulling into the driveway). Adams and Hunt were dispatched to the Tanner home because the Tanners called 911 and were in need of police assistance. In attempting to protect the family, the officers drove to the scene and entered the driveway as soon as they identified the correct address. From a policy perspective, imposing liability on the officers for acting in this manner would dissuade the police from responding expeditiously to 911 calls. The Tanners, however, cite the unpublished decision of May v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners, 59 Fed. App’x 786 (6th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that responding to a 911 call can give rise to a duty to protect the caller. In May, three separate 911 calls were placed by Deborah Kirk (“Deborah”) from her apartment. Id. at 788. The 911 operator heard screaming and crying before two of the calls were terminated by some action at the apartment. Id. Two officers responded to the scene, knocked on the apartment door, and looked in the windows. Id. Because they got no response from within and could not see or hear any activity inside, they left. Id. At the time the officers were at the scene, Deborah was being restrained by her ex-boyfriend, who beat her to death later that night. Id. at 789. This court accepted the plaintiff’s allegation that the officers’ actions “emboldened” the attacker because he had a diminished fear of arrest, and that a duty to protect was therefore owed to Deborah. Id. at 793. (The motion to dismiss was brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the court to accept the allegations as true). We decline to apply May to the present case. To start with, the decision is unpublished and is therefore not binding. More importantly, the opinion in May does not reflect any allegations or evidence that the officers knew or should have known that their actions specifically endangered Deborah, a requirement needed to satisfy the state-created-danger exception. See Cartwright, 336 F.3d at 493 (setting forth the three-element test). The plaintiff’s allegation in May that the officer’s actions emboldened the attacker is thus insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the state-createddanger exception. May is also distinguishable because the decision was before the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, as opposed to a motion for summary judgment. The May court had to accept the plaintiff’s allegation that the actions of the officers emboldened Deborah’s attacker. In contrast, the present case is before us in response to the Tanners’ appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and the applicable standard of review does not require that we simply accept the Tanners’ allegations. The Tanners claim in their brief that the actions of the officers “emboldened” Baker—“[T]he Appellees’ affirmative acts instilled into Baker the belief that he could do whatever he wanted, and that the police could not and/or would not intervene . . . [and the belief] that he was not going to get away, and it was ‘now or never.’” But the Tanners have not presented any evidence to substantiate these allegations, and therefore have failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding their emboldenment claim. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (“Rule 56(e) . . . requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”) (quotation marks omitted). No. 05-1107 Tanner et al. v. County of Lenawee et al. Page 7 The second reason that the officers are not liable under the state-created-danger exception is because the Tanners have not created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Adams and Hunt “knew or should have known that [their] actions specifically endangered” the Tanners. Cartwright, 336 F.3d at 493. Nothing in the record establishes that the officers knew that the person backing down the driveway was Baker. In fact, Deanna herself—the 911 caller—did not know who was in the vehicle, as evidenced by her statement to the operator that the driver was her husband Kirk and not Baker. There is also no evidence that the officers knew that simply pulling into the driveway (what the Tanners call “blocking” Baker in) would cause Baker to draw a weapon, even if they did know that Baker was in the vehicle. Furthermore, even if the officers did know that Baker was in the vehicle and that pulling in behind him would prompt him to exit the vehicle with a weapon, there is no evidence that the officers knew that Baker would rampage through the Tanner home on a shooting spree, as opposed to shooting at the officers or fleeing on foot. Any “genuine issue of fact” that remains is not material and does not preclude summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (holding that only disputes that affect the outcome are material). We therefore conclude that Adams and Hunt are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).