Onesimus Gayemen v. Allentown School District
712 F. App'x 218
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Onesimus Gayemen, a student at William Allen High School, was assaulted by fellow students in March 2011 in a gang-related attack.
- Gayemen alleged the school administration knew of recurring gang violence but failed to act; Assistant Principal James Dotterer had compiled a list of problem students that were not transferred out as reported.
- Gayemen sued the School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (state-created-danger/due process) and separately obtained monetary judgments against the individual attackers.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the School District, finding Gayemen failed to prove the state-created-danger elements.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding Gayemen could not show an affirmative state act that increased his vulnerability to private violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the School District violated due process under the state-created-danger doctrine by failing to protect Gayemen from gang violence | Gayemen argued the District’s knowledge of gang violence and failure to remove or discipline known offenders (and alleged concealment of reports) amounted to an affirmative use of state authority that increased his risk | The School District argued its inaction was a failure to protect (non-action), not an affirmative misuse of authority, and thus falls outside DeShaney/state-created-danger liability | Court held for the School District: plaintiff failed the fourth element (affirmative act) — mere inaction or failure to enforce policy does not render the State liable; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (Due Process Clause does not generally impose a duty to protect individuals from private actors)
- Bright v. Westmoreland Cty., 443 F.3d 276 (establishes four-element state-created-danger test)
- L.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 836 F.3d 235 (focus on affirmative-act/ departure-from-status-quo inquiry)
- Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160 (failure to expel a bully was not an affirmative act)
- D.R. ex rel. L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 1364 (no liability for school’s failure to investigate/stop abuse)
- Stanford v. Stiles, 456 F.3d 298 (rejecting recharacterization of inaction as an affirmative act)