Fields v. Abbott, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18027

Fields, a Miller County jailer, was seriously injured in 2004 by inmates during a law-library visit.
Inmates Arnold and Reynolds requested access to the law library; Fields escorted them unhandcuffed to the drunk-tank law library.
The jail policy allowed inmate assistance with legal research but required documentation of denials; Fields was unaware of a policy about limiting two inmates in the drunk-tank.
Fields had previously complained about an interior door handle and of understaffing; she had been injured by a similar door mechanism before.
There was understaffing and admission of inmates from other counties; Sheriff Abbott knew staffing was below DOC recommendations.
Fields sued Miller County and officials under § 1983, alleging a substantive due process violation under the state-created-danger theory; the district court denied qualified immunity for the individual defendants.
The inquiry on appeal focuses on whether the defendants’ conduct was conscience-shocking under the state-created-danger theory; the panel held they were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded for proceedings against Miller County.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
State-created-danger theory viability	Fields argues defendants created danger with understaffing and door handle.	Defendants contend there was no deliberate indifference; actions were not conscience-shocking.	Qualified immunity granted; no conscience-shocking conduct found.
Was the danger clearly established in 2004	Fields contends the rule was clearly established.	No clearly established standard applicable to these facts.	Court did not resolve clearly-established prong due to lack of violation.

Hart v. City of Little Rock, 432 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (duty to protect in custody; danger creation; deliberate-indifference standard applied)
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1992) (Due Process does not guarantee workplace safety against private actors)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (Due Process not violated by failure to protect from private violence)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity inquiry (clarified by Pearson))
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (court discretion to address prongs in any order; not mandatory)
Grubbs v. L.W., 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1992) (distinguish from state-created-danger here; not conscience-shocking)
James ex rel. James v. Friend, 458 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2006) (actual inference of risk required to show deliberate indifference)
Moore ex rel. Moore v. Briggs, 381 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference threshold; criminal recklessness standard when applicable)
L.W. v. Grubbs, ? (1992) (9th Cir.) (created danger claims depend on circumstances and state of mind)