Vickie Fetterman v. Westmoreland County Childrens
681 F. App'x 166
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Natalee was born prematurely on December 7, 2011, with neonatal opiate withdrawal; hospital social worker flagged safety concerns about her parents.
- Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau (WCCB) released Natalee to her parents on December 9, 2011; Fetterman (grandmother) took physical custody Dec. 10 without formal guardianship.
- WCCB caseworker Deanna Supancic learned of multiple risk factors (parental substance use, probation, prior domestic violence reports) during home visits; ICCYS and Natalee’s pediatrician expressed concerns.
- Supancic instructed Fetterman to return Natalee to her parents on December 15; WCCB made no meaningful follow-up, and Natalee died on December 27 from severe blunt-force injuries.
- Fetterman sued in 2015; she later amended to add Supancic and supervisor Shannon Haywood. The district court dismissed Supancic and Haywood as time-barred (failure to relate back) and dismissed WCCB/County under DeShaney/state nonfeasance precedent.
- The Third Circuit affirmed: the amended pleading did not relate back as to the individual defendants, and DeShaney controls so no state-created-danger claim succeeded on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint adding Supancic and Haywood "relates back" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) so claims are timely | Fetterman: omission was a mistake; amended pleading should relate back to original timely complaint | Defendants: plaintiff knew their identities/roles and deliberately sued only WCCB; no mistake to permit relation back | Court: No relation back—plaintiff showed no mistake about parties; amendment untimely as to Supancic and Haywood |
| Whether DeShaney's bar to Fourteenth Amendment affirmative-duty claims is overcome by the "state-created danger" exception | Fetterman: WCCB affirmatively ordered return and failed to follow up, which created or increased danger to Natalee | Defendants: conduct was nonfeasance/at most negligent and does not constitute affirmative, conscience-shocking action under DeShaney | Court: DeShaney controls; alleged conduct (failure to act and ordering return) did not "shock the conscience" or meet state-created-danger standard; claim barred |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (state generally has no constitutional duty to protect individuals from private violence)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (relation-back inquiry focuses on what prospective defendant knew or should have known)
- Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196 (Rule 15(c) relation-back requirements include both notice and mistake elements)
- Bright v. Westmoreland Cnty., 443 F.3d 276 (elements of state-created-danger claim outlined)
- Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 320 F.3d 409 (discussing state-created-danger theory)
- Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (§ 1983 statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law)