ESTATE OF BROWN v. FERRY COUNTY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-22No. No. 20-35611

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting the Estate's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim because the Estate failed to present evidence that the defendants' affirmative actions created or increased the danger that Brown faced.

The Estate of John Brown brought a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that defendants violated the deceased's constitutional right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. To proceed past summary judgment on such a claim, the Estate had to demonstrate that the defendants' affirmative conduct created or increased a specific danger that Brown would not have faced otherwise, that injury was foreseeable, and that the defendants knew of the danger but disregarded it anyway.

The court found the Estate's evidence insufficient on the first and most critical element. The defendants did not cause the fire, did not force Brown into the burning mobile home, and did not direct him into harm's way. Because the defendants took no affirmative actions that worsened Brown's position—and because Brown would have faced the same danger even if the defendants had done nothing at all—the constitutional claim could not survive summary judgment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether defendants' conduct violated the substantive due process right to bodily integrity
Application of state-created danger doctrine to facts involving fire and emergency response
Requirement of affirmative government action to create constitutional liability

Procedural posture

The Estate appealed a summary judgment dismissal of its Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant-plaintiff Estate of John Brown through Clinton Brown as the Administrator (“the Estate”) alleges Defendants violated John Browns substantive due process right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment. We assume familiarity with the facts so we do not recount them here.

For the Estates Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim to survive summary judgment, it must “make a sufficient showing on a[ll] essential element[s] of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Specifically, the Estate must show all state-created danger doctrine requirements: (1) Defendants’ affirmative actions created or exposed Brown to an actual, particularized danger that he would not otherwise have faced; (2) the injury Brown suffered was foreseeable; and (3) Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the known danger. See Martinez v. City of Clovis, 943 F.3d 1260, 1271 (9th Cir. 2019).

The Estate does not present evidence that Defendants took affirmative actions that placed Brown in a worse off position. For example, Defendants did not cause the fire, nor did they “shepherd[ ]” or “direct[ ]” Brown into his burning mobile home or otherwise instruct him to be in a dangerous location. See Hernandez v. City of San Jose, 897 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Dept, 227 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000); Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1997). If Defendants had “not acted at all”—if Defendants had done nothing in response to Browns phone calls—Brown would be in no worse position than what transpired. See Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2016). The Estate presents no evidence supporting its conclusory statement that Defendants’ “actions or inactions created or enhanced the danger that Mr. John Brown faced and ultimately succumbed to.” Thus, the Estates Fourteenth Amendment claim fails. See Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.