Johnson v. City of Biddeford, 92 F.4th 367

Susan Johnson, her son Derrick Thompson (deceased), and Jocelyne Welch (on behalf of her deceased daughter) filed suit after landlord James Pak shot them following a heated dispute about tenancy and parking at their leased apartment.
Prior to the shooting, Pak engaged in threatening behavior and made explicit threats, including gun gestures and statements such as "bang" towards Thompson, which were reported to the police.
Officer Edward Dexter of the Biddeford Police responded, interviewed both parties, and determined the matter was primarily a civil dispute, advising both to avoid contact but not taking further action to detain or assess Pak for mental health or firearm possession.
Shortly after Officer Dexter left, Pak entered the tenants' apartment and shot Johnson, Thompson, and Welch, killing two and seriously injuring Johnson.
Plaintiffs alleged that Officer Dexter, under the state-created danger doctrine, violated their substantive due process rights by failing to act on Pak's clear threats. The district court granted summary judgment for Dexter, invoking qualified immunity, and the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified immunity applicability	Dexter should have known his actions violated clearly established substantive due process rights.	No clear precedent put Dexter on fair notice his conduct was unconstitutional; his actions were reasonable.	Dexter entitled to qualified immunity; law did not give fair warning in 2012.
State-created danger doctrine	Dexter's actions (and inaction) enhanced the danger posed by Pak and showed deliberate indifference.	Dexter did not enhance any danger; he advised caution, kept parties apart, and lacked info of imminent threat.	No deliberate indifference; actions did not shock the conscience.
Affirmative vs. omission (due process)	Failing to detain or further investigate Pak after threats was an affirmative act creating danger.	Omission (not arresting/intervening more) is not an affirmative act under doctrine.	Failures to act did not amount to constitutional violation under doctrine.
Precedent (Kennedy & Monfils) applicability	Prior cases with similar facts provided fair warning to Dexter of constitutional limits.	Those cases involved more direct officer actions; not factually on point with present case.	Prior cases did not provide adequate fair warning; not controlling.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (state not liable for private violence unless it affirmatively places plaintiff in danger)
Irish v. Fowler, 979 F.3d 65 (state-created danger doctrine elements and "shocks the conscience" standard in this circuit)
Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (qualified immunity denied where police actions directly placed plaintiff in greater danger)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 ("clearly established" law under qualified immunity can come from factually similar cases)
Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 (failures to protect not affirmative acts under state-created danger doctrine)