Estate of Jimma Pal Reat v. Rodriguez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9788
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- At 4:12 a.m. on April 1, 2012, Ran Pal called Denver 911 after his car’s rear windshield was shattered; he and passengers had fled to Wheat Ridge across Sheridan Boulevard.
- 911 Operator Juan Rodriguez told Pal he had to return to Denver for police help; Pal repeatedly said he was injured, in shock, and scared, but Rodriguez insisted he return and wait at Sheridan and 29th (and turn on hazard lights).
- Rodriguez did not dispatch police or an ambulance before instructing Pal to stop and wait; Pal stayed on the line while driving back toward Denver.
- Minutes later Pal reported the assailants had brandished a gun; Rodriguez continued questioning and still did not send officers or advise relocation to a safer place.
- Seven seconds after Rodriguez urged Pal to wait, the assailants returned and shot Reat; officers were dispatched about one minute after the shooting; Reat died.
- Reat’s Estate sued Rodriguez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim via the state-created danger doctrine; Rodriguez moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied qualified immunity as to the state-created danger claim; the Tenth Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez violated substantive due process via the state-created danger doctrine by directing victims back into danger | Rodriguez affirmatively used government authority to send callers into the assailants’ path, increasing their vulnerability | No clearly established law makes a 911 operator liable here; Rodriguez did not physically restrain or otherwise limit victims’ freedom | Court: No. While doctrine exists, prior law did not clearly establish liability for a 911 operator in these circumstances; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether the state-created danger test applies to 911 operators and non-custodial victims | Estate: doctrine applies to state actors who create or increase danger regardless of role | Rodriguez: doctrine has generally been applied where the state limited victims’ ability to protect themselves (custodial or disabling contexts) | Court: Doctrine’s elements are established, but cases relied on are factually distinct; applying it to a 911 operator here was not clearly established |
| Whether defendant acted in a conscience-shocking manner sufficient to state a due process violation | Estate: directing the caller to stop and wait after knowledge of armed attackers was conscience shocking | Rodriguez: conduct, though poor, did not reach the level of conscience shocking under existing precedents | Court: District court’s conclusion plausible, but not enough to overcome qualified immunity because prior precedent did not put conduct beyond debate |
| Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving federal claims in defendant’s favor | Estate: ask to retain jurisdiction over related state claims | Rodriguez: argues federal claims resolved in his favor; standard favors dismissal of state claims when federal claims dismissed | Court: Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; remanded with instructions to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (explains qualified immunity scope and framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (permitting discretion in addressing qualified immunity prongs)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not just liability)
- Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2001) (state-created danger applied in social-service context)
- Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (limits on affirmative duty to protect outside custody)
- Browder v. City of Albuquerque, 787 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 2015) (state-created danger in off-duty officer/high-risk settings)
- Radecki v. Barela, 146 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 1998) (state-created danger applied to deputy who instructed civilian to subdue suspect)
- Beltran v. City of El Paso, 367 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2004) (911 operator miscoding call; operator entitled to qualified immunity)