Ralph Lisby v. Jonathan Henderson, 74 F.4th 470

On May 6, 2020, Indianapolis Officer Jonathan Henderson, driving on-duty, sped (allegedly ~78 mph) and illegally crossed a solid white line onto the highway shoulder while merging; his vehicle struck and killed pedestrian Ashlynn Lisby, who was walking on the shoulder. Lisby was eight months pregnant; the child was delivered emergently and later died.
Lisby’s father, as personal representative of the estate, sued Henderson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Ashlynn’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights; state-law negligence claims were also filed against Henderson and the City.
The case was removed to federal court; the district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Henderson on the § 1983 claim and relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
The central legal question on appeal was whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Henderson acted with the criminal-recklessness (deliberate indifference) required for a substantive due process violation.
The Seventh Circuit accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true but held they alleged negligence, not the subjective, conscious disregard of a known, impending harm required to state a § 1983 claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint plausibly alleges criminal recklessness (deliberate indifference) by an on-duty officer under the Fourteenth Amendment for fatal non-emergency driving conduct	Lisby: high speed, illegal lane change onto shoulder, and striking a pedestrian show Henderson knew the danger and was willing to let a fatal collision occur	Henderson: allegations at most plead negligence (unsafe driving), not the subjective intent or conscious disregard required for a constitutional violation	Court: Affirmed — allegations show negligence, not the actual knowledge and conscious refusal to prevent impending harm required for § 1983 liability

Hill v. Shobe, 93 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 1996) (motor-vehicle accidents by officials require criminal recklessness to state § 1983 claim)
Flores v. City of South Bend, 997 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2021) (extreme, unjustified high-speed driving may plausibly show subjective knowledge and deliberate indifference)
Bergal v. Roth, 2 F.4th 1059 (7th Cir. 2021) (standards for deciding Rule 12(c) motions — accept well-pleaded facts)
Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coyle Mech. Supply Inc., 983 F.3d 307 (7th Cir. 2020) (conversion of Rule 12(c) motion to summary judgment required only if the court considers materials beyond the pleadings)
Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2014) (standards for reviewing Rule 12(c) judgments)