A.G. v. Chester Upland School District, 655 F. App'x 125

Background

Ninth-grade student (Plaintiff) at Chester High School was assaulted by a trespasser posing as a student during the 2012–2013 school year; the attack was recorded and posted online and caused physical and emotional injury.
The School District had discontinued issuing student ID cards that year and reportedly allowed visitors to enter without identification or visitor passes.
Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a substantive due process violation under the state-created danger theory based on the District’s discontinuation of student ID cards.
The District moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing no constitutional violation and that any municipal liability requires a policy or custom under Monell.
The District Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim; the court found no affirmative act by the School District sufficient to satisfy the state-created danger test and denied further amendment as futile.
The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the failure to issue ID cards was not an affirmative act that foreseeably and directly created or enhanced the danger to Plaintiff.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the School District’s decision to stop issuing student ID cards can support a state-created danger claim under the substantive due process clause	The decision affirmatively created or enhanced a danger that foreseeably led to Plaintiff’s assault	The decision was non-affirmative/administrative and too attenuated from the random criminal attack to create constitutional liability	Held for Defendant — the cessation of ID cards was not an affirmative act that directly caused or increased Plaintiff’s danger
Whether the alleged conduct was a "fairly direct" cause of Plaintiff’s harm	The District’s policy change was the catalyst making the assault possible	The causal link is too attenuated; the assault was random criminal conduct, not the product of a deliberate state act	Held for Defendant — causation was too attenuated
Whether Plaintiff showed state actors acted with conscience-shocking culpability or a special relationship making him a foreseeable victim	Argued foreseeability and culpability based on the policy and lax visitor procedures	Defendant denied such culpability and highlighted lack of deliberate action making Plaintiff uniquely vulnerable	Held for Defendant — plaintiff failed to satisfy required elements, including affirmative act and causation
Whether dismissal with prejudice was improper because Plaintiff wasn’t given another opportunity to amend	Argued leave to amend should be permitted	District Court found further amendment futile; Defendant argued claim failed as a matter of law	Held for Defendant — dismissal with prejudice affirmed as amendment would be futile

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy or custom)
Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir. 1996) (recognizing state-created danger theory)
Bright v. Westmoreland Cty., 443 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2006) (four-element state-created danger test)
Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2013) (school’s nonfeasance not an affirmative act for state-created danger)
Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997) (causation too attenuated where policy decision didn’t directly produce violent act)
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (leave to amend required unless amendment would be futile)