Campbell v. STATE OF WASHINGTON DSHS
671 F.3d 837
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Campbell's developmentally disabled daughter Justine Booth (33) died after being found unconscious in a bathtub during SOLA placement overseen by Washington DSHS-affiliated staff.
- Justine had a history of seizures and severe cognitive impairment (IQ ~59) and had been a ward of the state until SOLA placement; PSPs repeatedly noted bathtub safety requirements.
- SOLA placement was initially voluntary but involved state care and supervision; Campbell remained Justine's guardian in some capacity after 1995, with SOLA staff handling care and medical authorization.
- On the night of Oct 10, 2006, SOLA employees Mitchell and McGenty instructed Justine to bathe; Justine lacked a helmet, bathroom monitor, and direct in-bath supervision under the 2006 PSP.
- Justine was pulled from the tub and died a week later from anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy due to near drowning; the district court granted summary judgment finding no duty under §1983 and no qualified immunity issues for the defendants.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding no special relationship or state-created danger, while a dissent argued the record supported a triable issue of fact and fault for state employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a special relationship existed to trigger due process duty | Campbell—Justine effectively confined by state custody | No custodial status; voluntarySOL placement not involuntary custody | No special relationship; no constitutional duty found |
| Whether a state-created danger existed | Defendants increased danger by ordering bath and leaving unattended | No affirmative act creating danger; not deliberate indifference | No state-created danger; no §1983 violation |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Right not clearly established at time; actions not clearly unlawful | Qualified immunity not available; no liable conduct established by majority | |
| Whether Justine's custody status could be de facto involuntary sufficient for liability | Record not showing involuntary custody required for special relationship under DeShaney |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (special relationship and duty to protect must arise from custody; state not liable for lack of protection absent affirmative custody)
- Kennedy v. Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (danger creation and affirmative action standards; deliberate indifference standard described)
- Patel v. Kent School Dist., 648 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (danger creation requires deliberate indifference and increased exposure to danger)
- Johnson v. City of Seattle, 474 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2007) (police plan changes did not worsen plaintiff's position; lack of affirmative state-created danger)
- Torisky v. Schweiker, 446 F.3d 438 (3d Cir. 2006) (voluntary commitments can become involuntary; custody status is a question for trial)