Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Braddy
673 F.3d 1313
11th Cir.2012Background
- CH, a 16-year-old, was placed with the Templetons by state social workers Braddy, English, Evans, and others.
- John Doe, a five-year-old, was injured by CH while CH was living in the Templetons' home; John Doe is Grandson of Gwen and Harold Templeton.
- Whitley Report (2003-04) recommended placement away from family foster homes and warned about CH's sexual issues; its recommendations were not fully shared with Templetons.
- Templetons and Jane Doe did not see the Whitley Report or its contents during the adoption process.
- Post-placement, social worker visits occurred; in June 2005 CH sexually abused John Doe, leading to removal and arrest; district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity.
- Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding social workers were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded for dismissal of federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Victim's due process rights were clearly established | John Doe argues established rights were violated by placement. | Braddy/English/Evans contend law was not clearly established for noncustodial context. | Not clearly established; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether the social workers are entitled to qualified immunity | Rights violation present due to failure to safeguard child. | Preexisting law did not clearly establish violation; officials acted within discretion. | Qualified immunity applies; reversal and dismissal warranted |
| Scope of applicable constitutional standard in noncustodial third‑party injury | Noncustodial context still triggers substantive due process rights. | Noncustodial cases require egregious conduct; need clear warning. | High threshold not clearly met; not clearly unlawful under preexisting law |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established standard requires explicit notice of unlawfulness)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (fair warning requirement; obvious unlawfulness must be clear)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (arbitrary or conscious shocking standard governs due process in noncustodial context)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (due process does not impose a general duty to protect; only custodial relationships create affirmative duties)
- Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 329 F.3d 1300 (2003) (noncustodial due process requires highly egregious conduct; expert guidance limited)
- Lewis v. Foltz, 551 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2008) (concerning standards for noncustodial substantive due process and placement decisions)
- McClish v. Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2007) (preexisting law not clearly establishing unlawfulness at high generality)
- Santamorena v. Ga. Military Coll., 147 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 1998) (exceptional substantive due process cases remain rare)
- Whit v. City of Harker Heights, not applicable (not applicable) (cited for general approach to clearly established rights in noncustodial context)
- Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984) (qualified immunity shields government officials absent clearly established rights)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (context-specific inquiry for qualified immunity)