Velita Glasgow v. State of Nebraska, etc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6418
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Nikko Jenkins was released from Nebraska custody in July 2013 after serving ~10.5 years; in August 2013 he murdered four people, including Curtis Bradford.
- Bradford’s mother, Velita Glasgow, sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1988 and Nebraska tort law against the State of Nebraska, several Department of Corrections officials (in both individual and official capacities), Douglas County, the City of Omaha, and Correct Care Solutions (CCS).
- Glasgow alleged defendants knew Jenkins was mentally ill and dangerous, that prison officials shortened inpatient treatment and changed recommendations to accelerate release, and that they were deliberately indifferent to foreseeable risks, causing Bradford’s death.
- The district court dismissed claims against the city, county, and CCS for failure to state a claim and dismissed claims against the State and DOC officials on Eleventh Amendment, qualified immunity, and Nebraska State Tort Claims Act (STCA) grounds (including procedural waiver and the discretionary-function exception).
- On appeal Glasgow argued (inter alia) that defendants waived immunity by removing state claims, that defendants violated Bradford’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights (special-relationship or state-created-danger), and that state-law negligence claims survived under the STCA.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: Glasgow forfeited several arguments, the § 1983 individual-capacity claims failed (no special-relationship or state-created-danger), official-capacity § 1983 claims barred by Eleventh Amendment, and state-law claims were forfeited or barred by STCA rules/exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of claims vs city, county, CCS | Their conduct made them liable for failing to prevent Jenkins’ attack | Complaint lacked plausible, specific allegations against these defendants | Affirmed — Glasgow forfeited challenge on appeal and complaint pleaded no plausible claims against them |
| § 1983 individual-capacity claims (due process) | State defendants’ release decisions deprived Bradford of life/liberty (special-relationship or state-created-danger) | No constitutional duty to protect general public; neither special-relationship nor state-created-danger applies | Affirmed — no special-relationship; state-created-danger fails because Bradford was not a limited, definable group member |
| Waiver of Eleventh Amendment by removal | Removal of identical state suit waived immunity | No waiver: the federal action was original, so no forfeiture from removal | Affirmed — no waiver of sovereign immunity |
| § 1983 official-capacity claims | State officials are liable in official capacity under § 1983 | States are not "persons" under § 1983; Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states absent waiver | Affirmed — official-capacity § 1983 claims fail and are barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Nebraska state-law negligence / STCA claims | State owed duty to public (or to Bradford) and breached duty by releasing Jenkins and failing to warn/report | Claims forfeited on appeal; STCA procedural rules and discretionary-function exception bar relief; officials acted within employment scope | Affirmed — Glasgow forfeited argument and STCA bars or precludes recovery (procedural waiver/discretionary-function) |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (Due Process Clause does not generally require state to protect individuals from private actors)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (state’s affirmative duties to provide adequate care for involuntarily committed persons)
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (States are not "persons" under § 1983; official-capacity suits are treated as suits against the state)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity requires violation of a clearly established right)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (qualified immunity standard reaffirmed)
- Fields v. Abbott, 652 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2011) (state-created-danger elements articulated)
- Hart v. City of Little Rock, 432 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (state-created-danger analysis)
- Lovins v. Lee, 53 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 1995) (no substantive due process right to be protected from release of criminals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility standard to pleadings)