Candis Flint v. City of Belvidere, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11194

Background

Marty Flint acted as a confidential informant for Belvidere, Illinois narcotics officers (Officers Dammon and Berry) in 2006–2009, participating in controlled buys and signing cooperation agreements.
Marty’s informant status became known to defense attorneys in earlier prosecutions; Marty knew his identity had been disclosed before he re-upped with the Belvidere Police in 2009.
Marty was shot and killed in November 2009; the killer and motive remain unknown and the Rockford police have treated the murder as a cold case.
Marty’s mother, Candis Flint, sued the City, supervisors, and Officers Dammon and Berry under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a substantive due process violation via the state-created danger doctrine (failure to protect an informant who was targeted because of cooperation).
After discovery closed, Flint moved to reopen discovery and asked the magistrate to appoint a special prosecutor alleging the officers lied in discovery; the magistrate denied both requests and Flint did not timely object to the district judge.
At summary judgment Flint failed to comply with N.D. Ill. Local Rule 56.1; the district court deemed most defendant factual statements admitted, declined to consider additional facts from Flint’s brief, and granted summary judgment for lack of evidence on causation and conscience-shocking state action.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate abused discretion by denying a discovery extension	Flint: Officers lied in discovery; new inquiry and special prosecutor needed, so discovery should be reopened	Defs: Motion was untimely and speculative; no basis to reopen after discovery closed	Denied — magistrate acted within discretion; Flint forfeited appellate review by not timely objecting
Whether a court may appoint a special prosecutor based on alleged discovery misconduct	Flint: Court should appoint a prosecutor to investigate alleged perjury and misconduct	Defs: Appointment is an executive function; no basis in a civil case; not contempt proceedings	Denied — judges may not appoint prosecutors in this context; procedure for contempt/special prosecutor inapplicable
Whether defendants’ conduct gives rise to a Fourteenth Amendment state-created danger claim	Flint: Officers’ actions (and alleged disclosures) exposed Marty to danger as an informant, satisfying state-created danger elements	Defs: No evidence linking officers to the disclosure or to Marty’s death; no conscience-shocking culpability; mere possibility is insufficient	Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiff produced no admissible evidence of causation or culpable state action
Whether the surviving facts (after Rule 56.1 enforcement) create a triable issue as to causation and mens rea required for substantive due process	Flint: The sequence (informant → disclosure → death) supports inference of causation and culpability	Defs: Temporal sequence alone is speculation; no direct or circumstantial evidence tying defendants to the killing or to a deliberate-indifference state of mind	Held: Temporal coincidence is insufficient; conjecture cannot defeat summary judgment;

Key Cases Cited

Windle v. City of Marion, 321 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2003) (municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by an individual officer)
Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. Cnty. of Madison, Ill., 746 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2014) (no respondeat superior § 1983 liability; municipal liability standards)
Petty v. City of Chicago, 754 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2014) (strict enforcement of Local Rule 56.1 at summary judgment)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (Fourteenth Amendment does not impose a general duty to protect individuals from private violence)
Jackson v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. 204, 653 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2011) (state-created danger doctrine and "shocks the conscience" standard)
McDowell v. Vill. of Lansing, 763 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2014) (elements of state-created danger; deliberate indifference may suffice in certain circumstances)
King ex rel. King v. East St. Louis Sch. Dist. 189, 496 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2007) (proximate cause/foreseeability element in state-created danger claims)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: burden shifts and nonmoving party must produce evidence)
Slade v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 702 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2012) (limits on using negligence/gross negligence to satisfy conscience-shocking standard)
Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2011) (district courts must enforce discovery deadlines; discovery must have an end point)