Dixon Ex Rel. Dixon v. Alcorn County School District, 499 F. App'x 364

Ruby Carol Dixon, a fourth-grade student at Kossuth Middle School, was attacked by a mentally disabled classmate during the 2009–2010 school year.
L.L., a fourth-grade special education student, attended part of the day in the regular classroom with Ruby Carol and had a documented history of emotional outbursts and misbehavior.
School officials repeatedly advised that L.L. should be removed from the regular classroom to a day treatment program, but Superintendent Suggs allowed him to remain in the regular setting.
L.L. directed abusive comments at Ruby Carol in February 2010, signaling ongoing safety concerns for her and others in the class.
On March 4, 2010, L.L. grabbed Ruby Carol, pinned her to a wall, and rubbed a Clorox wipe in her eye, causing injury requiring medical treatment.
Ruby Carol’s mother sued the district and district officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for substantive due process; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, which the Fifth Circuit affirmed, declining to adopt state-created danger liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to adopt state-created danger liability.	Dixon argues the circumstances justify adopting the theory.	Defendants urge not adopting the theory in this circuit.	Court declines to adopt; requires a known victim, which is not shown.

Doe v. Covington County School Dist., 675 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. en banc 2012) (declined to adopt state-created danger; requires known victim)
Rios v. City of Del Rio, Tex., 444 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2006) (no known victim; not liable)
Saenz v. Heldenfels Bros., Inc., 183 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 1999) (continued danger to public not a known victim)
Morin v. Moore, 309 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2002) (no known harm to a known victim)
Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 1995) (elements of state-created danger theory considered)