Jane Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5972
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Jane Doe (a minor) was heavily intoxicated with three teenage males at an apartment complex; a site manager called 911 and observed Doe being supported and moved toward a secluded area.
- Arlington Heights Police Officer Mark Del Boccio arrived, spoke briefly with the males through a car window, told the site manager the males were taking Doe home, did not ID or investigate them, and left; he reported the scene as "gone on arrival" and at some point called off another officer (Spoerry).
- After Del Boccio left, the three males carried Doe into a laundry room where Mount Prospect officers later found Christopher Balodimas sexually assaulting her; the males were arrested.
- Doe sued Del Boccio and the Village of Arlington Heights in state court asserting state-law tort claims and multiple § 1983 claims (individual and municipal liability, and negligent hiring/background-check theories); the case was removed to federal court.
- The district court dismissed all claims (finding qualified immunity and no constitutional violation; Illinois Tort Immunity Act barred state claims) and denied leave to amend; Doe’s motion to alter or amend raised a new class-of-one equal protection theory but included no proposed amended complaint.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it held Del Boccio entitled to qualified immunity, declined to extend state-created-danger liability here, found municipal claims and negligent-hiring theories deficient, and upheld dismissal of state claims under Illinois Tort Immunity Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Del Boccio violated Doe’s constitutional rights (due process/state-created-danger) by leaving her with the males, calling off backup, and reporting the scene clear | Del Boccio’s actions/inactions (and calling off Spoerry/false report) increased Doe’s danger and thus created a constitutional duty to protect under the state-created-danger exception | No clearly established constitutional duty to protect from private actors; Del Boccio did not create or increase the danger | Held: No constitutional violation; Del Boccio did not create/increase the danger and/or any such right was not clearly established (qualified immunity affirmed) |
| Whether qualified immunity can be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal | Doe argued dismissal was premature and discovery might reveal facts (e.g., encouragement to assailants) | Defendants argued law was not clearly established and dismissal on immunity grounds was proper given the complaint | Held: Early resolution appropriate here; qualified immunity applies because right was not clearly established and complaint lacked plausible factual allegations |
| Whether Doe could amend to add a class-of-one equal protection claim alleging racial animus | Doe claimed Del Boccio was racist and treated her differently (wanted harm to come because she was a white girl with African-American youths) | Defendants argued amendment speculative, plaintiff failed to attach proposed complaint, and allegations lacked plausibility/specificity | Held: Leave to amend properly denied as futile; plaintiff failed to proffer a proposed amended complaint and allegations were speculative and implausible |
| Whether federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law tort claims given dismissal of federal claims; whether Illinois Tort Immunity Act bars state claims | Doe urged remand/novel state-law issues and argued officer owed duty under community-caretaking/emergency-aid doctrines | Defendants argued Illinois Tort Immunity Act provides immunity (multiple sections), and federal court may keep or dismiss state claims at its discretion | Held: District court did not abuse discretion in retaining and dismissing state claims; Illinois Tort Immunity Act bars the asserted state claims and no persuasive basis to negate immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2014) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard and de novo review)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must allow reasonable inference of liability)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (discretion to address prongs of qualified immunity)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (no general due-process duty to protect from private violence)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (importance of resolving immunity early)
- Windle v. City of Marion, 321 F.3d 658 (failure to intervene did not create state-created-danger liability)
- Paine v. Cason, 678 F.3d 500 (examples of state-created-danger when state action propels victim into harm)
- Ross v. United States, 910 F.2d 1422 (state-created-danger where authorities prevented competent rescuers, causing death)
- Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94 (officers alleged to have conspired with attackers supported due-process claim)