Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14649

Brooklyn Coons died at 23 months while in the care of her father’s girlfriend.
Estate sues Linda Gillen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking due-process relief.
Gillen was a Kansas SRS social worker who allegedly knew of Brook’s danger but failed to respond to abuse reports.
There were multiple reports of bruising and abuse in Sept–Nov 2007, a safety plan was implemented, no home visits or law-enforcement referrals occurred.
Brook’s death on January 20, 2008 from shaken baby syndrome followed an AG investigation that found Gillen’s handling of the case was unusually hands-off.
The district court granted Gillen summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds; on appeal the court affirmed the grant of immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gillen’s conduct violated a clearly established right	Estate argues danger-creation theory applies	Gillen did not create/increase danger; law not clearly established	No clearly established violation; Gillen entitled to qualified immunity

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (state failure to protect from private violence generally not a due-process violation)
Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2001) (post-custody conduct analyzed; some acts can create danger; others cannot)
Gray v. Univ. of Colorado Hospital Authority, 672 F.3d 909 (10th Cir. 2012) (false assurances do not constitute affirmative action under danger-creation theory)
Hernandez v. Ridley, 734 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2013) (insufficient to clearly establish law in 2008; too late for preexisting clearly established standard)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (early related authority cited by estate; not controlling for clearly established law)