Court Opinion

ID: 9630910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:23:54.337813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:46.000871
License: Public Domain

Judge TAUBMAN,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority opinion except for that portion which holds that plaintiff Mary Henderson did not adequately state a claim against defendants Frank Gunther, William Price, and Ron Wager, in their individual capacities, for violation of her rights protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Whether Mary has stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against these defendants is a close question. Nevertheless, I agree that all the claims should be dismissed except one. In my view, Mary stated a claim by her allegations that these defendants violated her constitutional right to substantive due process by acting intentionally, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference to an impending attack and hostage taking of her.
In reviewing the propriety of an order granting a motion to dismiss, we must accept the allegations of the amended complaint, and reasonable inferences therefrom, as true. Elliott v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 865 P.2d 859 (Colo.App.1993).
In the amended complaint, Mary alleged the following:
On or about February 28, 1992, while on duty to distribute aspirin or other personal items to inmates at the correctional facility where she was employed, she was attacked by an inmate at the facility. The inmate took her hostage with the broken shank of a mirror and subsequently threatened her, forced her into an office, locked the door and, for approximately five and one-half hours beat her, tortured her with the mirror shard, cutting her about the neck, face, and hands, and used an electrical cord to shock her repeatedly in an attempt to electrocute her.
The amended complaint further alleged that, upon information and belief, this attack and hostage taking were part of an organized conspiracy by inmates to accomplish an escape from the facility. In addition, on information and belief, Mary and/or other prison employees had notified Wager of evidence of the impending attack and hostage taking threat at least a week prior to its occurrence and requested him to take preventive action. Mary additionally alleged that, upon information and belief, she submitted a memorandum to Wager outlining evidence of the in*56mate conspiracy and that this memorandum was distributed to Wager, Gunther, and Price prior to the attack on her.
The amended complaint further alleged that, approximately four days prior to the attack, she spoke with Wager about what steps he had taken in response to her report of the anticipated conspiracy, and Wager replied that he had taken no action. The complaint also alleged that defendants Price and Wager, among others, knew that the inmate who attacked Mary had a psychological rating which indicated he was unreasonably dangerous to house in the facility and the particular housing unit where Mary was employed.
Further, the amended complaint alleged that, in spite of warnings given by Mary, she was still required to perform her job on the day of the attack, without protection or any preventive measures being taken by any defendants on her behalf.
Finally, Mary alleged that by these actions the defendants: (a) intentionally placed her in a situation of danger created by them with reckless indifference and unguarded proximity with an inmate unreasonably dangerous for the facility; (b) that Wager, Price, and Gunther intentionally or recklessly failed to take any action in response to multiple warnings of the impending actions of inmates to protect her; and (c) that these three defendants intentionally placed her in a situation of known danger of their creation with deliberate indifference to that danger after receiving warning of a pending incident.
Mary’s first claim for relief, with which we are concerned here, alleged that defendants violated her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Those rights, she maintained, included the right to be free from injury resulting from the willful and wanton, reckless, deliberately indifferent, and/or grossly negligent behavior of the defendants acting under the color of state law, and the right not to be placed in a situation of known danger created by the intentional acts or deliberate indifference of the defendants acting under color of state law.
As the majority correctly notes, to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege that some person deprived the complainant of a right, privilege, or immunity established by the constitution or laws of the United States and that, in so doing, such person acted under color of state law. See Uberoi v. University of Colorado, 713 P.2d 894 (Colo.1986).
I recognize, as well, that § 1983 claims based upon due process violations are not intended to supplant state tort law. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986).
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989), the Supreme Court found that the state owed no constitutional duty to protect a child from the violent actions of his father, noting that in a substantive due process analysis, it is the state’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf through a deprivation of personal liberty that is the factor triggering the protections of the due process clause. Relying upon this language, a number of courts have held that there can be no § 1983 claim brought by an individual who is not in state custody. See, e.g., Nobles v. Brown, 985 F.2d 235 (6th Cir.1992).
However, the DeShaney court also noted in denying § 1983 liability that, despite the state’s awareness of the child’s dangerous predicament, the state “played no part in [its] creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to [it].” DeShaney, supra, 489 U.S. at 201, 109 S.Ct. at 1006, 103 L.Ed.2d at 262.
Following this language, the court, in L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir.1992), held that a valid § 1983 claim could be stated where state defendants created a dangerous situation for a registered nurse employed at a prison and made her more vulnerable to attack by misrepresenting to her the risks attending her work. In L.W., which is factually very similar to the circumstances presented here, the court held that the plaintiff had stated a claim under § 1983. In that case, the plaintiff was a registered nurse employed by the state of Oregon at a medium security custodial institution for young male offenders. While working with a known violent sex offender, she was assaulted, battered, kidnapped, and raped. There, *57as here, the trial court had dismissed the case for failure to state a claim on the ground that only a person in official custody could state a § 1983 claim when injured by a third party.
While the contours of a substantive due process claim have not been clearly delineated by the United States Supreme Court, see M. Schwartz & J. Kirklin, § 1988 Litigation: Claims, Defenses, and Fees § 3.3A (1995 Cum.Supp. No. 1), at least four federal circuit courts of appeal have recognized the danger creation exception to DeShaney and allowed a § 1983 claim to go forward. See L.W. v. Grubbs, supra; Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1122 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 389, 126 L.Ed.2d 337 (1993); Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94 (2d Cir.1993); Freeman v. Ferguson, 911 F.2d 52 (8th Cir.1990). See also Doe v. Taylor Independent School District, 15 F.3d 443 (5th Cir.), (en banc) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 70, 130 L.Ed.2d 25 (1994) (§ 1983 claim lies for substantive due process violation under “special relationship” exception to DeShaney when school official acts with deliberate indifference to students’ rights).
Similarly, in Jarvis v. Deyoe, 892 P.2d 398 (Colo.App.1994), a division of this court held that a post-DeShaney § 1983 claim could lie for failure to protect a person from harm, even in a noncustodial setting, when the state itself affirmatively created or enhanced the risk of harm.
Jarvis did not rely on the distinction between action and inaction by persons acting under color of state law discussed by the majority. Rather, it focused on the language in DeShaney suggesting that a § 1983 claim might exist if the state played a part in creating a dangerous situation or rendering an individual in a dangerous predicament more vulnerable. While the majority correctly notes that some courts have limited post-DeShaney § 1983 claims to instances of governmental action, in my view, it is both unnecessary and semantically unsound to draw this distinction.
In this regard, Jarvis is a case in point. While the majority suggests that there the police officer acted affirmatively in ordering the teenage driver not to drive her ear without proper license plates, it could just as easily be said that the gravamen of the Jarvis complaint was the officer’s inaction in not offering plaintiffs a ride to their home or another safe location.
Here, while one may assert that the complaint rests on allegations that the defendants failed to act to protect Mary, it might also be characterized as asserting that the defendants acted affirmatively by requiring her to go to work as usual on the morning she was taken hostage.
Thus, it is more appropriate to focus on the nature of the defendants’ alleged conduct, i.e., did they create a dangerous situation or render plaintiffs more vulnerable, rather than focus on the semantic linchpin of action versus inaction. In the area of preliminary injunctions, I note that a similar dichotomy between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions has not always proved viable. See generally C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure. Civil § 2942.
Further, in my view, Duong v. County of Arapahoe, 837 P.2d 226 (Colo.App.1992), relied upon by the majority, is distinguishable. There, the court did not expressly consider the danger creation exception to DeShaney. Further, in Duong, there was no allegation that the defendants played any part in the creation of the dangers to the decedent or that they did anything to render her more vulnerable to attack; to the contrary, some of the defendants had endeavored, albeit inadequately, to protect her.
Here, by contrast, Mary has expressly alleged that defendants Wager, Price, and Gunther were specifically warned about the impending attack and hostage taking attempt and rendered her more vulnerable by taking no action to protect her.
Furthermore, the amended complaint alleges that these defendants acted intentionally, recklessly, and with deliberate indifference to the dangers Mary faced. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has noted: “Practically every court that has considered the issue has concluded that reckless intent may violate § 1983.” Medina v. City & County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir.1992) (collecting cases).
Additionally, Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 *58L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) does not require a different result. There, the Supreme Court ruled that a municipality’s failure to train or warn its employees about known work hazards which allegedly caused the death of an employee did not violate the due process clause. The court was concerned with a claim that the city deprived plaintiff of life and liberty by failing to provide a reasonably safe work environment. In my view, Collins is distinguishable. Here, as in L.W. v. Grubbs, supra, the defendants took affirmative steps to place the injured plaintiff at significant risk, knew of the risks, and made her more vulnerable to them.
Under these circumstances, I conclude that Mary Henderson has stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Wager, Price, and Gunther, and accordingly, I would allow that claim to proceed. In so doing, however, I would note that I express no opinion on whether defendants’ actions are protected under the more stringent qualified immunity test. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (defendants not held liable unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known); Jarvis v. Deyoe, supra.