James Gladden, Jr. v. Kenneth Richbourg, 759 F.3d 960

Gladden died of environmental hypothermia after two NLRO officers transported him toward the Lonoke County line and left him at the Remington Road exit on a cold night.
Gladden had asked for a ride to his sister’s house; officers instead dropped him off, directing him to seek help at a nearby factory guard station.
Gladden appeared mildly intoxicated; there was a guard station about a thousand feet away and a factory visible nearby, with potential shelter and phone access.
Plaintiff James, as administrator, alleged Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, Arkansas Civil Rights Act claims, and wrongful-death claim.
District court granted qualified immunity to officers and official immunity to all defendants, and dismissed state-law claims.
On appeal, the court reviews qualified-immunity de novo and addresses whether the officers violated clearly established rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers violated due process via a custodial/special-relationship theory	Gladden was placed in a dangerous setting with state involvement.	No custodial relationship existed; Gladden voluntarily accepted a ride.	No Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment violation; no custodial duty found; qualified immunity applies.
Whether officers created a state danger under the state-created danger theory	Leaving Gladden at a remote exit created an obvious risk of harm.	Gladden voluntarily accepted the risk; intoxication was not extreme enough to shock conscience.	Not proven; no deliberate indifference or state-created danger; qualified immunity applies.
Whether official-capacity claims against defendants fail for lack of policy or custom	NLPRD custom of transporting intoxicated individuals violated due process.	Custom did not place a person in custody or in danger under Fourteenth Amendment.	Claims fail; no basis to impose liability on policy/custom under Monell framework.
Whether Arkansas state-law claims survive after federal dismissal	State claims independently viable under Arkansas law.	State claims rise or fall with federal claims; dismissal of federal claims warrants dismissal of state claims.	State-law claims barred as dependent on federal claims; dismissal affirmed.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (due-process protection limitations; no general duty to protect unless in custodial/danger scenarios)
Gregory v. City of Rogers, Ark., 974 F.2d 1006 (8th Cir. 1992) (two circumstances giving rise to police-duty to assist under due process)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity shields officials who do not knowingly violate clearly established rights)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (standard for qualified immunity; protection for reasonable officials)
Estate of Stevens v. City of Green Bay, 105 F.3d 1169 (7th Cir. 1997) (custody concept under due process and protective duty analysis)
Riordan v. City of Joliet, 3 F. Supp. 2d 889 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (intoxication and withdrawal risk in protected by due process; extreme intoxication affects duty)
Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference to rights required to shock conscience)
Island v. Buena Vista Resort, 103 S.W.3d 671 (Ark. 2003) (state-law claims often rest on federal claim resolution)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local government liability for unconstitutional official policies or customs)
Louden v. City of Minneapolis, 233 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2000) (qualified-immunity analysis viewed through officer's perspective)