Lizette Vargas v. City of Philadelphia, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6331

Background

On Aug. 19, 2009, 15‑year‑old Tabitha suffered a severe asthma attack at home; Vargas made multiple frantic 911 calls and attendees placed Tabitha partly into a cousin’s car to drive her to the hospital.
Police Officers White and Blaszczyk were dispatched to a report coded as “person screaming”; they arrived moments before an ambulance; dispatch records show roughly one minute between officer arrival and ambulance arrival.
Vargas alleges officers blocked Diaz’s car, ordered occupants out, prevented Vargas from reaching or transporting Tabitha to the hospital, and pulled a car door causing Tabitha to fall partly out of the vehicle.
Tabitha was transported by EMS, arrived at the hospital with severe anoxic brain injury, and died two weeks later; Vargas’s expert opined a 6–8 minute delay caused the fatal injury.
Vargas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment seizure and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process) against the officers and the City (failure to train/Monell), and asserted state false imprisonment claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Vargas appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vargas/Tabitha were "seized" under the Fourth Amendment	Vargas: officers’ blocking of car, orders to exit, and preventing reentry constituted a seizure (show of authority)	Officers: did not physically restrain; at most issued commands while responding to a chaotic scene; no submission by Tabitha	Court: need not decide seizure; even assuming seizure, it was reasonable and not unconstitutional
If a seizure, whether it was unreasonable	Vargas: officers’ actions delayed emergency transport causing harm	Officers/City: conduct was a reasonable community‑caretaking response to a volatile, medical‑emergency scene; ambulance arrival was imminent	Held: seizure (if any) was reasonable under community‑caretaking/exigent circumstances; officers appropriately awaited EMS
Substantive due process claims (parental rights; special‑relationship; state‑created danger)	Vargas: officers interfered with her right to make medical decisions and failed to protect Tabitha, causing death	Defendants: officers faced a hyperpressurized emergency, acted to secure care, and did not act with conscience‑shocking intent or deliberate indifference	Held: summary judgment for defendants — conduct did not shock the conscience or meet deliberate indifference/intent standard
Monell failure‑to‑train and state false imprisonment (PSTCA)	Vargas: City failed to train officers/policies causing constitutional and false imprisonment violations	City: no underlying constitutional violation; PSTCA immunizes employees absent willful misconduct	Held: Monell claim fails because no constitutional violation; false imprisonment barred by PSTCA (no willful misconduct); summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (Fourth Amendment seizure requires termination of freedom by means intentionally applied)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (seizure occurs by physical force or a show of authority restraining movement)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure requires submission to an officer’s show of authority)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (community caretaking doctrine permits non‑investigatory police actions for public safety)
Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2010) (distinguishing community caretaking doctrine’s application to homes versus automobiles)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires municipal policy or custom causing violation)
Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (substantive due process: standard depends on whether officials had time to deliberate)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires conscious disregard of a substantial risk)