Brittany Morrow v. Barry Balaski, 719 F.3d 160

Brittany and Emily Morrow were students at Blackhawk High School; they faced repeated threats, assaults, and racial harassment by a fellow student, Shaquana Anderson, starting January 2008.
Despite police involvement and court orders prohibiting contact, Anderson continued to threaten and attack the Morrows at school and at events.
Morrows alleged the school officials failed to protect them, presenting a §1983 substantive due process claim and a state-law negligence claim.
District Court dismissed, adopting Middle Bucks’ rule that public schools do not owe a constitutional duty to protect students from private violence.
The panel granted en banc review to reconsider whether a special relationship or state-created danger doctrine could support liability in this context.
Morrows sought damages and attorney’s fees; district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a special relationship existed between the Morrows and the school.	Morrows argue state custody during school creates a duty to protect.	Court should follow DeShaney and Middle Bucks; no general special relationship.	No general special relationship under DeShaney framework
Whether the school created or heightened danger under the state-created danger theory.	School's actions (or failure to act) increased risk to Morrows.	No affirmative act; inaction cannot create liability under the theory.	State-created danger claim not proven at this stage; no liability under that theory
Whether the complaint was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).	Complaint states plausible §1983 claims under theory of special relationship or state-created danger.	Dismissal appropriate given lack of constitutional duty.	Affirmed dismissal; complaint insufficient to establish either theory

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (general rule: state has no duty to protect from private violence; exception for special relationship)
D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 1364 (1992) (en banc held no special relationship between public schools and students (context later reconsidered))
Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (1996) (state-created danger; affirmative use of authority can create danger)
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (dicta on school custody and duty to protect; not general rule for schools)
Bright v. Westmoreland Cnty., 443 F.3d 276 (2006) (deliberate indifference/creation of danger; nuanced tests in state-created danger)