Abdisamad v. City of Lewiston, 960 F.3d 56

In June 2018 a Lewiston seventh-grade field trip to Range Pond State Park included 111 students and 11 school chaperones; DACF provided one lifeguard at the beach.
At some point after 11 a.m. a student reported R.I. missing; witnesses allege the lifeguard appeared unsure how to respond; rescue personnel later located R.I., who was pronounced dead at a hospital.
Plaintiff Ali Abdisamad sued the City of Lewiston, Lewiston School Department (together, City Defendants), and the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry (DACF), asserting substantive due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and wrongful death/state civil‑rights claims.
The amended complaint alleged defendants failed to follow protocols (no swimming proficiency checks, inadequate safety instruction, no buddy system, insufficient lifeguards), and that those failures created the danger that caused R.I.’s death.
The district court dismissed DACF on Eleventh Amendment sovereign‑immunity grounds and dismissed the City Defendants’ § 1983 substantive due process claim for failure to allege conscience‑shocking conduct or municipal policy; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state wrongful death claim. A motion for reconsideration was denied and Abdisamad appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DACF can be sued in federal court	Abdisamad pressed federal claims against DACF	DACF invoked Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity	DACF immune; dismissal affirmed (plaintiff waived any challenge)
Whether complaint states a § 1983 substantive due process claim against City Defendants (municipal liability)	Alleged departures from protocols and failures to follow training suffice to state a claim (relied on Irish)	Municipal liability requires an unconstitutional policy or custom; mere failure to follow protocol or negligence is insufficient	Dismissed: allegations show failures to follow policy, not an unconstitutional municipal policy or custom; no plausible Monell claim
Whether Irish requires vacatur/remand for discovery into training/protocols	Abdisamad argued Irish entitles him to discovery because protocol/training might show liability	Irish addressed individual officers and remand where facts supported conscience‑shocking theory; it does not change Monell municipal‑liability standards	Irish inapplicable here; municipal standard differs from individual liability; no remand needed
Whether district court erred by declining supplemental jurisdiction over state wrongful death claim	Abdisamad did not challenge this on appeal	City Defendants defended discretionary dismissal	Waived on appeal; in any event dismissal of federal claims at an early stage makes declining supplemental jurisdiction not an abuse of discretion

Irish v. Maine, 849 F.3d 521 (1st Cir. 2017) (discusses state‑created danger theory and remand where officer conduct and training facts mattered)
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires unconstitutional policy or custom; no respondeat superior)
DePoutot v. Raffaelly, 424 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2005) (substantive due process requires conduct that shocks the conscience)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (Due Process Clause does not impose liability for mere lack of due care by government actors)
Martínez v. Cui, 608 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (conscience‑shocking standard applied; negligent or non‑egregious conduct lacks constitutional significance)
Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (different standards govern individual officials and municipalities under § 1983)
Dirrane v. Brookline Police Dep't, 315 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2002) (municipal liability requires independent unconstitutional policy or custom)
Kennedy v. Town of Billerica, 617 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 2010) (failure to train or supervise can support Monell liability only when municipal policy caused the constitutional tort)
Berube v. Conley, 506 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2007) (disposition of § 1983 claim controls claim under Maine Civil Rights Act)