Irish v. State of ME
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3731
1st Cir.2017Background
- Brittany Irish reported being abducted, raped, strangled, and threatened by Anthony Lord and sought police help; the Maine State Police took her statement and declined her request to meet Lord with a wire or officer present.
- Irish expressly warned State Police that notifying Lord of the complaint would likely provoke violence; officers nevertheless left a voicemail for Lord asking him to come to the barracks.
- Within hours of the voicemail, Lord allegedly set a fire at Irish’s family barn, later entered the family home, fatally shot Irish’s boyfriend, gravely wounded Irish’s mother, abducted Irish, and then engaged in a shootout with police in which a third person was killed.
- The Irishes sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a substantive due process “state-created danger” violation and that officers’ conduct exacerbated the risk to them; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and found qualified immunity for individual officers.
- The First Circuit vacated dismissal as to the individual officers and remanded for discovery, emphasizing missing factual details about what officers knew, what the voicemail said, whether protocols were followed, and relevant police training.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ conduct created a state-created danger actionable under substantive due process | Irish: leaving a voicemail after warning that notification would incite violence specifically created and exacerbated danger | Defendants: notifying a suspect to interview him is standard police practice and Rivera controls | Remanded for discovery; court declined to resolve at 12(b)(6) given factual gaps that may bear on the claim |
| Whether officers’ actions shocked the conscience required for due process liability | Irish: deliberate indifference by alerting Lord and failing to protect victims was conscience-shocking | Defendants: conduct did not meet conscience-shocking threshold and is consistent with ordinary investigative steps | Undecided on the merits; factual development required to assess whether conduct was conscience-shocking |
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity | Irish: actions not protected if they violated established procedural norms and were clearly unreasonable | Defendants: reasonable officers would not have had fair notice that leaving a voicemail violated due process (qualified immunity) | Vacated denial of claim; remanded to permit discovery relevant to clearly established law and protocol violations |
| Appropriateness of resolving these questions on the pleadings (12(b)(6)) | Irish: factual deficiencies in complaint (e.g., voicemail content, protocol) make dismissal premature | Defendants: Rivera and procedural precedents support dismissal at motion to dismiss stage | Court held dismissal premature as to individual defendants and ordered targeted discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir.) (discusses state-created danger theory and limitations on imposing constitutional liability for routine investigative actions)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (general rule that state’s failure to protect from private violence does not violate due process)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (articulates "shocks the conscience" standard for substantive due process claims)
- Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 813 F.3d 27 (1st Cir.) (denied qualified immunity where officer’s conduct violated clear safety protocols)
- Marrero-Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 677 F.3d 497 (1st Cir.) (protocol violations relevant to denying 12(b)(6) dismissal on due process theory)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (discusses early resolution of qualified immunity in litigation)
- Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056 (2014) (qualified immunity and timing of resolution)
- Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir.) (denying qualified immunity where training advised contacting offender at end of investigation)
- Mlodzinski v. Lewis, 648 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.) (qualified immunity protects officers unless they violate clearly established rights)