L.S. v. Scot Peterson, 982 F.3d 1323

Background

On Feb. 14, 2018, Nikolas Cruz killed 17 and injured 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School; 15 students (plaintiffs) sued Broward County and five officials alleging psychological injuries from the shooting and governmental failures before and during the event.
Plaintiffs alleged prior reports about Cruz, inadequate school security, a permissive entry by security guard Andrew Medina, school-resource officer Scot Peterson and other officers who remained outside, and Captain Jan Jordan ordering medics to stage outside the building.
Plaintiffs brought a § 1983 complaint; Count IV asserted a substantive-due-process claim based on defendants’ alleged inability/incompetence to protect students; Count V asserted a First Amendment retaliation claim against Medina; other counts (I–III) raised unrelated Fourth Amendment claims.
The district court dismissed Count IV (and V) with prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading and for failure to state a claim, finding no custodial relationship and no conduct that was "arbitrary" or "conscience shocking;" it allowed some claims to proceed against Peterson but later granted summary judgment for him; the students appealed only Count IV.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: students were not in defendants’ custody; allegations amounted to negligence/incompetence, not the required intentional or conscience-shocking conduct; deliberate indifference in this non-custodial, split-second context did not suffice; leave to amend was futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the three John Does parties on appeal?	Plaintiffs seek to revive Doe defendants dropped from the amended complaint.	The amended complaint superseded the original; Does were omitted and are not defendants.	Does are not parties; plaintiffs cannot belatedly add them.
Do students have a substantive-due-process claim based on a custodial relationship?	Presence of armed school officers and compelled attendance create an exception to the non-custodial rule.	Schoolchildren are not in custody; officers’ presence does not convert that status to custody.	No custodial relationship; no special duty to protect.
Does defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference or blocking of medics amount to "arbitrary" or "conscience shocking" conduct?	Defendants knew of Cruz’s danger, failed to intervene, and Jordan prevented lifesaving care; this shows deliberate indifference/conscience shocking behavior.	Conduct arose in a rapidly evolving, dangerous situation requiring split-second judgments and shows negligence/incompetence, not intent to harm.	Conduct did not meet the high "conscience shocking" standard; absent purpose to cause harm, no substantive-due-process violation.
Was a failure-to-train claim adequately pled and would amendment cure defects?	Plaintiffs contend failure-to-train is pleaded by incorporation of factual allegations into Count IV.	No standalone failure-to-train claim was properly pled; underlying facts negate an intent-to-harm violation; amendment would be futile.	Failure-to-train was not properly pled; leave to amend would be futile; dismissal with prejudice affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (substantive-due-process claims are disfavored and require care)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (split-second-judgment contexts require purpose to harm for conscience-shocking finding)
Nix v. Franklin Cnty. Sch. Dist., 311 F.3d 1373 (schoolchildren are not in custody for substantive-due-process duty-to-protect)
Wyke v. Polk Cnty. Sch. Bd., 129 F.3d 560 (custodial relationship requires restraints comparable to confinement)
White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253 (no duty to protect absent custody; conscience-shocking standard explained)
Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 329 F.3d 1300 (discusses deliberate indifference and constitutional culpability thresholds)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: conclusory allegations insufficient)
Waldron v. Spicher, 954 F.3d 1297 (deliberate indifference in non-custodial, rapidly evolving situations generally insufficient for substantive due process)
Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239 (futility standard for denying leave to amend)