Court Opinion

ID: 2964636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:40.466002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:45.608683
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2201

                                 BETTY LORD, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                            TOWN OF LINCOLNVILLE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            David M. Glasser on brief for appellants.
            ________________
            Edward  R.  Benjamin,  Jr.,  Elizabeth  A.  Campbell  and   Preti,
            __________________________   _______________________        ______
        Flaherty, Beliveau &  Pachios, L.L.C.  on brief for  appellee Town  of
        _____________________________________
        Lincolnville.

                                 ____________________

                                    April 25, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  On October 2,  1993, Roderick Lord was
                      __________

            severely injured in an  automobile collision that occurred at

            an  intersection within  the  geographical boundaries  of the

            Town   of   Lincolnville,  Maine.      Contending  that   the

            intersection  is inherently  dangerous and  that the  Town is

            responsible, Lord's legal guardians  brought suit against the

            Town  under 42 U.S.C.    1983.  The  district court dismissed

            the  complaint  for  lack   of  jurisdiction.    This  appeal

            followed.

                      The sole issue on  appeal is whether a  claim under

            the Due Process Clause lies in this  case.  We think not.  As

            the Supreme Court  made clear  in Collins v.  City of  Harker
                                              _______     _______________

            Heights,  503  U.S. 115,  126-27  & n.9  (1992),  the Federal
            _______

            Constitution is not a guarantee  of certain minimal levels of

            safety  and security.  See also  DeShaney v. Winnebago County
                                   ________  ________    ________________

            Dep't of Social  Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 194-97 (1989) (holding
            _______________________

            that  a  State's failure  to  protect  an individual  against

            private violence generally does not constitute a violation of

            the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on

            the State  to  provide members  of  the general  public  with

            adequate  protective  services).   Nor  may  the Due  Process

            Clause be used to  supplant state tort law claims.   Collins,
                                                                 _______

            503  U.S. at 128; see also Frances-Colon v. Ramirez, 107 F.3d
                              ________ _____________    _______

            62, 63-64  (1st Cir. 1997) (rejecting  plaintiffs' attempt to

            clothe   malpractice   claim  in   civil   rights  language).

                                         -2-

            Appellants'  various  attempts  to  distinguish  Collins  and
                                                             _______

            DeShaney fail.
            ________

                      First,  contrary  to   appellants'  suggestion,   a

            decision whether or not to purchase and install four-way stop

            signs  involves  the  allocation of  financial  resources and

            requires  the  decision-maker  to  balance  competing  social

            needs.    Such decisions  are  best made  by  locally elected

            representatives  "rather than by  federal judges interpreting

            the  basic charter  of  Government for  the entire  country."

            Collins,   503  U.S.   at  128-29;   see  also   Lewellen  v.
            _______                              _________   ________

            Metropolitan Gov't  of Nashville  & Davidson County,  34 F.3d
            ___________________________________________________

            345,  351 &  n.5 (6th  Cir. 1994)  (applying Collins),  cert.
                                                         _______    _____

            denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995).  
            ______

                      Second, we reject appellants' suggestion  that Lord

            was in  the functional custody  of the Town  of Lincolnville.

            Lord voluntarily chose to drive his car on Ducktrap Extension

            Road.   Cf. Searles  v. Southeastern Penn.  Trans. Auth., 990
                    ___ _______     ________________________________

            F.2d 789,  792 (3d Cir.  1993) (observing that  plaintiff was

            not deprived of his liberty when he voluntarily chose to ride

            elevated  train).  Moreover, an individual is not deprived of

            his liberty by virtue of being subject to laws.

                      Finally, we do not think appellants' can rely on  a

            state-created danger  theory.  Cf.  Searles, 990 F.2d  at 793
                                           ___  _______

            (rejecting  attempt to  distinguish  Collins where  plaintiff
                                                 _______

            alleged that municipal transit  authority created a danger by

                                         -3-

            failing to maintain  railcars in  safe operating  condition).

            To the extent that  the Town can be held  responsible, Lord's

            injuries resulted from  the Town's failure to  act (namely, a

            failure to  remove visual impediments and a  failure to alert

            drivers to the  danger).   The case simply  does not  involve

            "injury directly caused by a state actor's affirmative act in

            the traditional sense."  Id.
                                     ___

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -4-