David Engler v. David Arnold
862 F.3d 571
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- T.F., a minor, was killed by his stepfather on January 26, 2013; complaint alleges prior abuse and a hospital visit two days earlier for frostbite and serious bruises.
- David Arnold, Interim Executive Director of Mahoning County Children’s Services Board, allegedly received reports of abuse, concluded injuries were accidental, refused to investigate or report, and declined to cooperate with police.
- Engler, administrator of T.F.’s estate, sued Arnold under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of procedural and substantive due process, invoking the state-created-danger theory.
- Arnold moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); the district court granted the motion, dismissing both due-process claims.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit accepted the complaint’s allegations as true but found the pleadings deficient: they lacked timing, duration, and factual detail showing Arnold’s acts increased T.F.’s risk.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) mere failures to investigate or report are not affirmative acts under the state-created-danger doctrine and (2) the procedural due-process claim was waived for insufficient briefing below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arnold’s conduct supports a substantive due-process claim under the state-created-danger theory | Arnold’s refusal to investigate/report increased T.F.’s susceptibility to future violence and thus was an affirmative act creating/increasing risk | Arnold’s inaction was a failure to act, not an affirmative act; DeShaney bars liability absent conduct that made plaintiff worse off | Dismissed — complaint alleges only inaction; plaintiff failed to plead an affirmative act or facts showing increased risk |
| Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded that Arnold’s actions placed T.F. in a special, particularized danger | Engler contends Arnold’s conduct specifically endangered T.F. (not just public at large) | Arnold argues no facts show a special danger or that he knew his conduct specifically endangered T.F. | Dismissed — complaint lacks facts on timing, awareness, and causal link required to show special danger |
| Whether Arnold knew or should have known his actions endangered T.F. | Engler claims Arnold knew reports of abuse and still declined to act | Arnold disputes any pleaded facts establishing knowledge and how that knowledge increased risk | Dismissed — insufficient factual allegations to show subjective or objective knowledge tied to increased risk |
| Whether procedural due-process claim should be reviewed on appeal | Engler urged review to avoid miscarriage of justice | Arnold argued claim was waived by failure to defend it below | Waived — Sixth Circuit refused to consider procedural due-process claim absent developed argumentation below |
Key Cases Cited
- Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard for Rule 12(c) and accepting complaint allegations as true)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (Due Process Clause generally imposes no affirmative duty to protect from private violence)
- Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) (state-created-danger theory requires affirmative act that creates or increases risk)
- Cartwright v. City of Marine City, 336 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2003) (elements of state-created-danger claim: affirmative act, special danger, and knowledge)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1997) (issues perfunctorily raised are deemed waived)
- Hayward v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 759 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2014) (exceptions to waiver doctrine where plain miscarriage of justice or exceptional circumstances exist)