Cаrlin ROBINSON, individually, as Guardian and next Friend of I.Y., M.Y. and A.Y., and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Veronica Williams, Deceased; Eunice Graves, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Daniel A. LIOI, Defendant-Appellant, and Baltimore City Police Department; Cleaven Lawrence Williams, Jr., Defendants.
No. 12-1922
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Decided: July 30, 2013
Argued: March 20, 2013
Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVID A. FABER, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Lioi (“Lioi“), a police officer with the Baltimore City Police Department (“BCPD“), filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court‘s denial of his Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on his assertion of qualified immunity against plaintiffs’
Because this is an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss, the material facts as alleged in the complaint are taken as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421-22 (1969); Tobey v. Jones, 706 F.3d 379, 383 (4th Cir. 2013).
A.
Veronica Williams (“Veronica” or “Mrs. Williams“) and Cleaven Williams (“Cleaven” or “Mr. Williams“) were husband and wife. Shortly after they married, Cleaven began to abuse Veronica, both mentally and physically. The abuse escalated over time and, eventually, Veronica not only filed assault charges against Cleaven but also went into hiding.
On November 17, 2008, Mrs. Williams appeared before the Baltimore Distriсt Court in connection with her request for a protective order against her husband. Cleaven Williams was provided notice of the hearing and, at the conclusion of the hearing, the protective order was granted. As Veronica was leaving the courthouse that day, Cleaven attacked Veronica, stabbing her repeatedly in broad daylight just one block from the courthouse. A few days latеr, Veronica, who was four to six weeks pregnant at the time with the couple‘s fourth child, suffered a miscarriage. That same day, Veronica died as a result of the injuries she sustained. Cleaven Williams was found guilty of his wife‘s murder and is currently incarcerated.
As mentioned earlier, several weeks prior to her death, Veronica had filed assault charges against her husband. As a result of the assault charges, а warrant was issued for Cleaven Williams’ arrest. Lioi and other officers, in violation of the procedure for service of a warrant, withheld the warrant from the domestic violence unit that was responsible for serving it. Lioi also warned Cleaven Williams about the warrant and sent him text messages to help him avoid capture. Finally, when Cleaven Williams arrived at police headquarters on November 14, 2008, Liоi refused to serve or arrest him, falsely claiming that the warrant could not be found. Lioi was later suspended when homicide investigators discovered text messages between Lioi and Cleaven Williams warning Williams and giving advice on avoiding capture.
B.
Carlin Robinson, as Guardian and Next Friend of Veronica‘s children, and Eunice
The plaintiffs asserted a claim against Lioi and the BCPD for violating Mrs. Williams’ due process rights under
The court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the BCPD but denied Lioi‘s motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. The instant appeal followed. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) (permitting interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity determinations).
II.
The defense of “[q]ualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer‘s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.‘” Wiley v. Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir. 1994); (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 195 (2001), the Supreme Court laid out a two-step process for resolving the qualified immunity claims of government officials. First, а court must decide whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right. See id. at 201. Second, a court must decide whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of defendant‘s alleged misconduct. See id. Courts may exercise discretion in deciding which of the two Saucier prongs “should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). A government official asserting a qualified immunity defense bears the burden of proof and persuasion. See Wilson v. Kittoe, 337 F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir. 2003). We review the denial of a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity de novo. See Tobey, 706 F.3d at 385.
A.
“As a general matter ... a State‘s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. of Dep‘t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989). There are, however, a few limited exceptions. One such exception is wherе the state creates or enhances the danger. See id. at 198.1
In DeShaney, the Winnebago County Department of Social Services (DSS) was sued for violating four-year-old Joshua DeShaney‘s substantive due process rights by failing to protect the child from his father‘s abuse. See id. at 192-95. The DSS had received a number of reports that Joshua was being abused by his father yet they failed to remove him from his father‘s custody. See id. at 192-93. Eventually, Jоshua was beaten so badly that he suffered serious brain damage. See id. at 193. The Supreme Court held that the DSS was not liable because “[w]hile the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them.” Id. at 201. This language in DeShaney is commonly acknowledged as the genesis of the state-created danger doctrine.2
Citing DeShaney, this Court has recognized the state-created danger doctrine, noting that “[w]hen the state itself creates the dangerous situation that resulted in a victim‘s injury, the absence of a custodial relationship may not be dispositive. In such instances, the state is not merely accused of a failure to act; it becomes much more akin to an actor itself directly causing harm to the injured pаrty.” Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1177; see also Waybright, 528 F.3d at 207-08 (referencing Pinder‘s acknowledgment of state-created danger theory but refusing to apply it under facts of case); Stevenson v. Martin Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 3 Fed.Appx. 25, 31 (4th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (“In Pinder this court was faced with a case in which it had to decide the contours of DeShaney‘s state-created danger exception.“). Although the Court ultimately rejected Pinder‘s reliance on the state-created danger exception, see Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1175, and although we have not since applied the exception, the Court‘s discussion in Pinder is widely acknowledged as the seminal case in this circuit on the theory. See Waybright, 528 F.3d at 207-08; Stevenson, 3 Fed.Appx. at 31; see also Mills v. City of Roanoke, 518 F.Supp.2d 815, 819-20 (W.D.Va. 2007) (“The leading Fourth Circuit case on the state-created danger exception is Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169 (4th Cir. 1995).“).
This Court has acknowledged that the state-created danger exception is a narrow
Despite Lioi‘s attempt to characterize his behavior otherwise, it is clear that his conduct, as alleged, was far more than a mere passive failure to act; the type of omission claim which the court rejected in Pinder. To the contrary, Lioi is alleged to have conspired with Cleaven Williams “to evade capture” and “to remain free despite the finding of probable cause,” thereby directly enabling him to harm Mrs. Williams. (J.A. 20, at ¶¶ 20, 23.) To paraphrase Pinder, Lioi‘s affirmative acts in the conspiracy with Cleaven Williams “create[d] the dangеrous situation that resulted in a victim‘s injury.” Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1177. Lioi, as alleged, was “an actor itself directly causing harm to the injured party.” Id. Lioi conspired with Cleaven Williams to help Williams avoid being arrested. Lioi actively interfered with the execution of the warrant by not only failing to turn the warrant over to the proper unit with the BCPD responsible for its execution, but also by warning Mr. Williams and giving him advice about how to avoid service of the warrant. Furthermore, Lioi lied to avoid service of the arrest warrant by falsely contending that it could not be found. Such acts meet the state-created danger exception under Pinder.
While courts have applied the state-created danger exception in varying contexts, the Ninth Circuit‘s decision in Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989), is particularly instructive. In Wood, a police officer stopped the car in which the plaintiff was a passenger, аrrested the driver, and impounded the vehicle. Id. at 586. Though the stop occurred in a high-crime area, the police officer required the plaintiff to get out of the car and abandoned her to external dangers. Id. The police officer left with the vehicle and the abandoned plaintiff was subsequently raped. Id.
As in Wood, Lioi‘s alleged affirmative acts with his co-conspirator, Cleaven Williams, to avoid arrest directly enabled Mr. Williams to perpetrate the harm to Mrs. Williams. Lioi, therefore, “affirmatively placed [Mrs. Williams] in a position of danger.” Id. at 589.
The Court finds unpersuasive Lioi‘s argument that, because a police оfficer has discretion in the execution of arrest warrants, see Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 764 (2005), his conduct in this case did not violate Veronica Williams’ substantive due process rights and thus did not run afoul of § 1983. In Castle Rock, a father took his three daughters from their mother‘s yard, in violation of a restraining order. Id. at 753. Despite repeated phone calls from the mother informing them that her daughters were missing and that the restraining order had been violated, the рolice did nothing. Id. at 753-54. Eventually, the daughters were found to have been murdered by their father. Id. at 754.
As to the mother‘s
The instant case is distinguishable from Castle Rock. Lioi attempts to characterize his conduct in this case as a mere failure to act. However, according to the complaint, that is a gross mischaracterization. As discussed above, Lioi‘s alleged conduct in this case was not confined to a failure to execute the arrest warrant. Lioi affirmatively acted to interfere with execution of the warrant by conspiring with Cleaven Williams to evade capture and remain at large. Whereas Castle Rock is, fundamentally, a case about inaction, Plaintiffs in the instant case have alleged affirmative misconduct on Lioi‘s part such that his actions “directly caus[ed] hаrm to the injured party.” Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1177. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are not foreclosed by Castle Rock.3
Lioi‘s affirmative acts, as alleged, were on that “point on the spectrum between action and inaction,” Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1175, such that his acts created “the dan
B.
When determining whether a constitutional right was clearly establishеd, a court asks whether the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question. See Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1173. A right is clearly established when the contours of the right are sufficiently clear such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Id. This inquiry is focused on whether the official was on notice that his or her conduct violated clearly established law and that the state of the law рrovided fair warning that the conduct was unconstitutional. Id.
A right is clearly established when it has been authoritatively decided by the Supreme Court, the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state in which the action arose. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 251 (4th Cir. 1999). The relevant, dispositive inquiry is whether it would be clear to a reasonable person that the conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 195. “Clearly established” does not mean that “the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,” but requires the unlawfulness of the conduct to be apparent “in light of preexisting law.” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 (1999).
The responsibility imposed on public officials to comply with constitutional requirements is commensurate with the legal knowledge of an objectively reasonable official in similar circumstances at the time of the challenged conduct. It is not measured by the collective hindsight of skilled lawyers and learned judges. * * * “Officials are not liable for bad guesses in gray areas; they are liable for transgressing bright lines.” Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295, 295 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1080 (1993); Jackson v. Long, 102 F.3d 722, 730-31 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Williams v. Hansen, 326 F.3d 569, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that for purposes of qualified immunity, executive actors are not required to predict how the courts will resolve legal issues). “The linchpin of qualified immunity is objective reasonableness.” Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1173.
“In determining whether the specific right allegedly violated was ‘clearly established,’ the proper focus is not upon the right at its most general or abstract level, but at the level of its application to the specific conduct being challenged.” Wiley v. Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting Pritchett v. Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 1992)). “Notably, however, the existence of a case holding the defendant‘s identical conduct to be unlawful does not prevent the denial of qualified immunity.” Edwards, 178 F.3d at 251; see also Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905, 923 (10th Cir. 2001) (“It is not necessary, however, for plaintiffs to find a case with exact corresponding factual circumstances; defendants are required to make ‘reasonable applications of the prevailing law to their own circumstances.’ “) (quoting Murrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 186 F.3d 1238, 1251 (10th Cir. 1999)).
Despite Lioi‘s assertion to the contrary, the right to be free from state-created danger has been clearly established in this circuit. See Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1177; see also Waybright, 528 F.3d at 207; Stevenson, 3 Fed.Appx. at 31. The
The easiest cases don‘t even arise. There has never been ... a section 1983 case accusing welfare officials of selling foster children into slavery; it does not follow that if such a case arose, the officials would be immune from damages ... liability.
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271 (1997) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Pullium v. Ceresini, 221 F.Supp.2d 600, 605 n. 5 (D.Md. 2002) (“The lack of deсisional authority defining the constitutional right in this specific context does not imply that the unlawfulness of the conduct under the Constitution is not apparent.“).
For qualified immunity purposes, in 2008, a reasonable police officer in Lioi‘s position would have known that a law enforcement officer affirmatively acting in a conspiracy with a third party to avoid arrest on assault charges could give risе to a constitutional violation when the third party acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to injure another person. As this Court has stated on repeated occasions, although qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from bad guesses in gray areas, they are liable for transgressing bright lines. See Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 1992). Lioi‘s conduct as alleged in the complaint was not in a gray area; he crossed a bright line.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court denying qualified immunity to Lioi is
AFFIRMED.