454 F.Supp.3d 75
D. Me.2020Background
- Tenants Susan Johnson, Derrick Thompson, and Alivia Welch had an altercation with landlord James Pak on Dec. 29, 2012; Thompson called 9-1-1 reporting threats and Pak miming a gun.
- Officers Edward Dexter and Jacob Wolterbeek responded; Dexter interviewed the tenants and then the Paks; Pak admitted threatening language and made further threatening statements in Dexter’s presence.
- Dexter cautioned Pak, advised civil remedies, told tenants to keep distance, did not arrest or seize Pak, and left the scene; Officer Wolterbeek departed soon after.
- Roughly five minutes later Pak re-entered the tenants’ apartment and shot Johnson, Thompson, and Welch; Thompson and Welch died; Pak was later convicted and imprisoned.
- Plaintiffs sued the City of Biddeford, Police Chief Beaupre, and officers Dexter and Wolterbeek under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Maine Civil Rights Act, § 1985, and various state tort claims; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding no constitutional violation under the First Circuit’s state-created danger framework and that state-law immunities and Monell principles barred municipal and other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ conduct (meeting Pak, leaving) created state-created danger and violated substantive due process under § 1983 | Dexter’s contact with Pak, promised protection, and departure increased risk and/or lulled plaintiffs into reliance | Officers took discretionary, de-escalatory actions; their conduct did not affirmatively create or markedly increase risk | Court: No § 1983 violation — officers’ acts/omissions were not affirmative conduct that greatly increased risk; DeShaney principles prevail |
| Whether officers’ promise or assurance created duty to protect (reliance theory) | Plaintiffs: Dexter effectively promised protection, inducing reliance that prevented further self-protective measures | Defendants: No explicit or implicit promise; statements were warnings/advice; unkept promises alone do not create constitutional duty | Held: No binding promise; even relied-on assurances do not establish constitutional violation here |
| Municipal liability (Monell) for failure to train/supervise | City/Chief failed to train/supervise officers, causing constitutional harm | Municipal liability requires underlying constitutional violation by an officer; none occurred | Held: Monell claim fails because no underlying § 1983 violation; summary judgment for City/Chief |
| State-law torts and conspiracy (§ 1985, negligence, IIED, assault/battery, wrongful death) and state immunity | Plaintiffs: Officers’ conduct supports civil conspiracy, negligence, emotional distress, assault/battery, wrongful death | Defendants: No evidence of conspiracy or actionable conduct; Maine Tort Claims Act grants discretionary-function immunity | Held: Summary judgment for defendants on § 1985 and state conspiracy, tort claims, and wrongful death; discretionary immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (state generally has no constitutional duty to protect individuals from private violence)
- Irish v. Maine, 849 F.3d 521 (1st Cir. 2017) (discusses state-created danger exception and importance of officers’ manner and foreseeability; factual issues may preclude summary disposition)
- Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2005) (elements of state-created danger require affirmative act that creates or markedly increases risk)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation and a municipal policy or custom causing it)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (no substantive due process right to have someone arrested)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (qualified immunity test: whether defendant violated clearly established law)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) (§ 1985(3) requires class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus)