Marlo McDowell v. Village of Lansing
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15863
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- After a bar fight in unincorporated Cook County on June 25, 2011, McDowell was chased and then detained by Lansing Officer Michael Rodriguez, who arrived alone, drew a Taser, and ordered everyone to lie on the ground.
- McDowell lay prone with hands behind his head about ten feet from Rodriguez; one antagonist, Morandi, ignored orders, approached, and kicked McDowell in the face, breaking his jaw and requiring surgery.
- McDowell alleges Rodriguez detained him (making him vulnerable), failed to warn or Tase Morandi, did not handcuff Morandi, failed to summon an ambulance, and that deputies later handcuffed McDowell before hospital transport.
- McDowell sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a substantive due process claim via the state-created danger doctrine; he also asserted Illinois common-law willful-and-wanton negligence against Rodriguez and the Village and an indemnification claim against the Village.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Rodriguez’s conduct not sufficiently egregious to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and that McDowell failed to overcome Illinois Tort Immunity Act protections; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez’s detention of McDowell created state-created danger sufficient to violate substantive due process | Rodriguez detained McDowell, increasing his vulnerability and failing to protect him, satisfying the state-created danger elements | Rodriguez made a split-second, reasonable decision amid danger; his conduct was at most negligent and did not shock the conscience | No — detention and attendant choices were not sufficiently egregious to create a Fourteenth Amendment violation |
| Whether plaintiff satisfied the ‘‘shocks the conscience’’ standard (intent/deliberate indifference) | Officer’s failure to warn or restrain Morandi and placing McDowell closest to him shows reckless or deliberate indifference | Officer faced emergency, was outnumbered, used Taser as nonlethal measure, and had only seconds to act; no intent to harm | No — emergency context and split-second judgment foreclose finding of conduct that shocks the conscience |
| Whether Rodriguez is entitled to qualified immunity | Rodriguez’s actions violated clearly established constitutional rights | Even if a violation, the law was not clearly established; alternatively, no constitutional violation occurred | Court resolved on the merits and found no constitutional violation (did not reach qualified immunity) |
| Whether state-law willful-and-wanton claim overcomes Tort Immunity Act immunity | Rodriguez’s alleged willful or wanton conduct (detaining McDowell and failing to secure Morandi/call ambulance) defeats immunity | Actions were not willful or wanton—more like ordinary negligence amid an emergency—so immunity applies | No — plaintiff did not show willful or wanton conduct; Illinois immunity bars the state-law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and view of facts for nonmoving party)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework and permissibility of deciding merits first)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (high standard for conscience-shocking conduct; negligence insufficient)
- King ex rel. King v. E. St. Louis Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2007) (elements of state-created danger doctrine)
- Slade v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of City of Milwaukee, 702 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussion of reckless acts that gratuitously endanger as potential due-process violations)
- Carter v. Simpson, 328 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2003) (emergency context requires intent to harm for conscience-shocking finding)
- Schaefer v. Goch, 153 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 1998) (applying Lewis to officer-in-the-line-of-duty shooting context)
- Moran v. City of Chicago, 676 N.E.2d 1316 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (police actions that separate combatants and investigate do not demonstrate willful and wanton conduct)
- Geimer v. Chicago Park Dist., 650 N.E.2d 585 (Ill. 1995) (definition of willful and wanton conduct under Illinois law)