867 F.3d 1178
10th Cir.2017Background
- James Dahn, a foster child in Oklahoma custody, was placed in Colorado with prospective adoptive father Jeremiah Lovato via a Colorado-licensed private agency (Adoption Alliance) that contracted to monitor the placement.
- Between Sept 2008 and Mar 2009, school officials reported suspected abuse; Colorado caseworkers Amedei and Cramer investigated several reports but did not remove Dahn or secure private agency cooperation; monitoring visits were limited and often not private.
- Adoption Alliance caseworker Little recommended finalization; Colorado court entered an adoption decree in December 2008 transferring custody to Lovato; Dahn continued to suffer abuse and fled in Jan 2010 with severe injuries.
- Dahn sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process violation under the special-relationship doctrine against Colorado caseworkers, plus state-law claims against the private agency and its employees.
- The district court allowed the special-relationship § 1983 claim to proceed against Amedei and Cramer and denied qualified immunity; the Tenth Circuit reversed on qualified-immunity grounds, holding the extension of the special-relationship doctrine across state lines was not clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado caseworkers had a § 1983 special custodial relationship with Dahn after he was placed in Colorado by an Oklahoma sending state | Dahn: Colorado workers who investigated abuse reports and were the local custodial officials assumed sufficient control to create a special relationship | Amedei/Cramer: Dahn remained in Oklahoma custody until adoption; a receiving-state worker’s investigation alone does not create constitutional custodial duty | Court: Reversed denial of qualified immunity — law did not clearly establish that receiving-state workers investigating abuse create a special relationship across state lines |
| Whether existing precedent (e.g., Schwartz) clearly established that the special-relationship doctrine extends across state sovereigns | Dahn: Schwartz supports extending the doctrine beyond the initial placing authority to officials exercising custody where the child lives | Defendants: Schwartz involved counties within one state; it did not clearly place interstate extension beyond debate | Court: Schwartz and other precedent did not clearly establish interstate extension; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Amedei and Cramer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right such that qualified immunity is lost | Dahn: Their investigatory failures and acceptance of responsibility for oversight should have put them on notice of a constitutional duty | Defendants: No controlling case law would have put reasonable social workers on notice of constitutional liability under these facts | Held: No clearly established right; qualified immunity warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no constitutional duty where state did not assume custodial control over child)
- Schwartz v. Booker, 702 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 2012) (special-relationship doctrine can extend beyond the county that made the initial placement within one state)
- Yvonne L. ex rel. Lewis v. N.M. Dep’t of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1992) (state officials violate due process when aware of danger and failure to exercise professional judgment causes injury)
- DeAnzona v. City & County of Denver, 222 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2000) (special relationship requires custodial restraint and dependency for basic needs)
- Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1995) (state must assume control sufficient to trigger affirmative duty)
- Maldonado v. Josey, 975 F.2d 727 (10th Cir. 1992) (foster child must depend completely on the state for basic human needs)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established standard for qualified immunity)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (existing precedent must place constitutional question beyond debate)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (clearly-established inquiry is fact-specific)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights)