Tamela Montgomery v. City of Ames, 749 F.3d 689

Montgomery was seriously injured when Bailey, armed, broke into her home after a protective order limited his contact.
Ames police Officer Mueller investigated Montgomery’s allegations but did not arrest Bailey that night.
Bailey remained at large; Montgomery received conflicting information about whether Bailey violated the order.
Beasley and Akins reported Bailey’s shooting and Beasley later provided information about Bailey’s location and condition.
Emergency responders and a perimeter were established hours after Montgomery’s calls; Bailey died from a head wound a week later.
Montgomery sued City of Ames, several officers, and various State Defendants alleging due process violations related to danger creation and indifference to protective-order violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City Defendants created a danger to Montgomery under due process	Montgomery asserts city actions created or failed to mitigate danger	City Defendants argue no conscience-shocking conduct or state-created danger	No due process violation by City Defendants on this record
Whether Officers Owens, Ropp, Crippen were deliberately indifferent or created danger	Officers failed to timely aid Montgomery	Officers acted reasonably under uncertain scene conditions	No deliberate indifference; claims dismissed for these officers
Whether Mueller’s investigation before arrest violated Montgomery’s rights	Mueller created danger by not arresting Bailey	Actions were reasonable given conflicting accounts	Mueller not liable; no conscience-shocking conduct
Whether State Defendants’ summary judgment was improper without notice	State claims should be argued and noticed separately	State claims not addressed; no prejudice shown	Remand for State Defendants to address due process claims with notice

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (failure to protect private violence not generally actionable; protections when in state custody or state creates danger)
Fields v. Abbott, 652 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2011) (state-created danger framework elements and shock-the-conscience standard)
Hart v. City of Little Rock, 432 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference required for conscience-shocking conduct)
Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2009) (need for official policy or custom for municipal liability)
City of L.A. v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1986) (municipal liability requires injury caused by city policy or custom)
Sanders v. Board of County Commissioners, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (D. Colo. 2001) (district court decision on danger enhancement at scene; distinguishable facts)
Williams v. City of St. Louis, 783 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1986) (notice and opportunity to respond required when ruling on claims not discussed)