Natasha Whitley v. John Hanna
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16485
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Whitley, a former Explorer Post participant, sues Hanna, Bullock, Murray, and Grubbs under §1983 for failure to protect her from Ariaz and for using her as bait to secure his conviction.
- Ariaz, a Brownwood police sergeant, groomed and sexually abused Whitley after previously abusing a prior victim (A.M.).
- Hanna investigated Ariaz beginning January 2007; later resumed investigation in July 2007 and implemented surveillance to gather evidence.
- District authorities met July 9, 2007, to continue surveillance; three two-man teams surveilled Ariaz and Whitley; Ariaz was arrested in mid‑July 2007 and later convicted.
- Whitley’s 2011 §1983 complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and based on qualified immunity; the district court denied her motion to amend as futile.
- The Fifth Circuit AFFIRMS, holding no §1983 deliberate-indifference or bystander liability and ruling amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference by Appellees | Whitley says Hanna/Bullock/Murray/Grubbs were deliberately indifferent. | Appellees acted within reasonable investigation, not deliberately indifferent. | No plausible deliberate indifference by any defendant. |
| Bystander liability under §1983 | Appellees could be liable for failing to intervene to stop Ariaz. | No presence or acquiescence by officers; Hale not satisfied here. | No bystander liability for Hanna, Bullock, Grubbs, or Murray. |
| Amendment of the complaint | Would add theories of supervisory liability, policy/custom, and secondary liability. | Amendment futile; lacks underlying constitutional violation and fails on new theories. | District court properly denied leave to amend; amendment futile. |
| Qualified immunity interplay | Defendants violated clearly established rights; immunity not appropriate. | Rights not clearly established; actions reasonable under existing law. | Qualified immunity available; no clearly established violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Taylor Independent School District, 15 F.3d 443 (5th Cir.1994) (supervisor liable for student bodily‑integrity violation via deliberate indifference)
- Doe v. Rains County Independent School District, 66 F.3d 1402 (5th Cir.1995) (supervisor liability for contributing breach; state-law control over perpetrator)
- Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914 (5th Cir.1995) (bystander liability requires presence and acquiescence; liability for failure to intervene)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S.1998) (police enforceability of private rights; limitations on state duties)
- Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.2004) (fair warning standard in qualified immunity analysis)
- Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp., 430 F.3d 245 (5th Cir.2005) (deliberate indifference in medical context; high risk scenarios)
- Rains v. County Independent School District, 66 F.3d 1402 (5th Cir.1995) (supervisor liability and state-created-danger concepts in context)