Tara Long v. County of Armstrong, 679 F. App'x 221

Robert Crissman, an Armstrong County Jail inmate with a criminal record and heroin addiction, was admitted to the Jail’s Trustee Program despite withdrawal and flight risk.
Trustees performed jobs outside the jail without direct physical supervision; Crissman was assigned to tray duty and escorted food to a delivery van outside the facility.
Crissman escaped while outside the Jail, fled to the nearby home of acquaintance Terry Slagle, and murdered Tammy Long, who lived in that house and was unaware of the escape.
Plaintiffs (administrators of Long’s estate) sued Armstrong County and the Warden under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, invoking the state-created danger theory based on alleged jail policy deficiencies.
The District Court dismissed the § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim; the Third Circuit affirmed, focusing on the “foreseeable plaintiff” (third) element of the state-created danger test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs pleaded a viable state-created danger § 1983 claim	Long was a foreseeable victim because Jail knew Crissman’s risks and nearby residents (within ~¼ mile) formed a discrete class likely to be harmed	Jail lacked any contact or knowledge of Long or her connection to Crissman; harm was to the public at large, not a discrete class	Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed the "foreseeable plaintiff" requirement; no sufficiently close relationship

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no affirmative general duty to protect from private violence)
Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (sets four-part state-created danger framework)
Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997) (distinguishes foreseeable plaintiff vs. general public)
Rivas v. City of Passaic, 365 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2004) (requirement that relationship be "sufficiently close")
L.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 836 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2016) (example where class-based policy made plaintiffs foreseeable)
Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir. 1996) (personal encounter created foreseeability of harm)
Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277 (1980) (distinguishing harms to residents versus public at large)
Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1122 (7th Cir. 1993) (out-of-circuit example of liability for creating risk to a definable class)
Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. Russell, 825 F.2d 12 (3d Cir. 1987) (earlier state-created danger discussion referenced)