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 dismissal of the Estate's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because the Estate failed to demonstrate that the defendants took affirmative actions that placed Brown in a worse position than he would otherwise have occupied.

The Estate of John Brown brought a federal civil rights lawsuit against Ferry County, claiming that county officials violated the deceased's constitutional right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment by their response to a dangerous situation. The Estate relied on the "state-created danger" doctrine, which permits constitutional liability when government actors take affirmative steps that put someone in greater peril than they would otherwise have faced.

The court found that the Estate failed to establish the first essential element of its claim: that the defendants took affirmative actions that worsened Brown's position. The opinion noted that the defendants did not cause the underlying fire, did not force or direct Brown into the burning mobile home, and did not instruct him to remain in the dangerous location. The court reasoned that if the defendants had done nothing at all in response to Brown's calls, he would have faced the same circumstances. Because the Estate presented no evidence that the defendants' conduct—whether through action or inaction—created or enhanced the danger Brown faced, 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' response to an emergency created or enhanced a particularized danger under the state-created danger doctrine
Whether mere inaction or failure to prevent harm can constitute actionable affirmative conduct under the Fourteenth Amendment
The distinction between state-created danger and general government inaction or negligence

Procedural posture

The Estate appealed from an adverse summary judgment ruling on its Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against Ferry County.

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.