24 F.4th 1156
7th Cir.2022Background
- Kylie DiDonato slipped, hit her head, and was found bleeding and disoriented in Tim Panatera’s bathroom in March 2018; Panatera is a City of Chicago paramedic.
- Instead of calling 911 or transporting her, Panatera allegedly rinsed and wrapped DiDonato’s head, moved her to his bed, and then sexually assaulted her while she was semi-conscious.
- DiDonato later went to an ER, was treated for head trauma and concussion, and sued Panatera, asserting federal § 1983 (due process) and various state-law claims (assault, battery, negligence).
- The district court dismissed the § 1983 claim, holding DiDonato failed to plead a DeShaney-type “special relationship” and failed to show Panatera acted under color of state law; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, focusing on the state-action (color of law) issue: the conduct occurred in Panatera’s home in a private relationship and was not enabled by or an exercise of state authority, so § 1983 did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Panatera acted under color of state law for § 1983 | Panatera, a licensed/on-call paramedic, performed medical acts (rinsing/wrapping head) and took a work call, so his conduct was in his official capacity | The events occurred in Panatera’s home in the context of a private relationship; mere employment or being on-call does not convert private acts into state action | Court affirmed dismissal: Panatera’s conduct was private social interaction, not under color of state law |
| Whether a DeShaney special-relationship (state duty to protect/medical care) existed | DiDonato argued Panatera’s role as a City paramedic created a constitutional duty to provide medical care | City/defense: no custody, no state control; no allegation DiDonato was in the City’s care or custody | Court did not decide DeShaney issue on the merits; affirmed dismissal on the state-action ground and thus did not reach special-relationship analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (state’s special-relationship duty framework)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (constitutional obligation to provide medical care to prisoners)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (state actor acts under color of law when abusing state-granted authority)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (purpose of § 1983 to deter abuse of state authority)
- Pickrel v. City of Springfield, 45 F.3d 1115 (7th Cir. 1995) (off-duty officer acting under color of law where indicia of authority present)
- Barnes v. City of Centralia, 943 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2019) (employee’s private act reporting threats was not state action)
- Latuszkin v. City of Chicago, 250 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2001) (off-duty officer’s private conduct not state action absent indicia of office)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 713 (7th Cir. 1981) (officer’s acts are state action only if related to performance of official duties)
- Lopez v. Vanderwater, 620 F.2d 1229 (7th Cir. 1980) (judge’s abuse of office constituted state action because he was cloaked with judicial authority)
- Hughes v. Meyer, 880 F.2d 967 (7th Cir. 1989) (official’s report to police was functionally private and not state action)
- First Midwest Bank v. City of Chicago, 988 F.3d 978 (7th Cir. 2021) (private social interaction by a public employee is not state action)
- Luce v. Town of Campbell, 872 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2017) (some on-duty uses of office resources do not convert conduct into state action)
- Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510 (7th Cir. 1990) (mere assertion of official status insufficient to prove action under color of law)