Anderson v. Worstell , 492 F. App'x 913 ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 1, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
NICHOLL ANDERSON, Personal
Representative for the Estate of Mitchel
Anderson, deceased,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-1327
v. D. Colorado
B. WORSTELL, (No. 2172) individually (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00488-RPM)
and in his capacity as a paid peace officer
and as an employee and/or agent of the
Colorado Springs Police Department and
the City of Colorado Springs; C.
CALKINS, (No. 2047) individually and in
his capacity as a paid peace officer and as
an employee and/or agent of the Colorado
Springs Police Department and the City
of Colorado Springs; THE CITY OF
COLORADO SPRINGS, in its capacity as
a governmental entity and as the
employer of Officers Worstell and
Calkins and the Colorado Springs Police
Department,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, in its capacity as an
agent and/or independent contractor of
the City of Colorado Springs; JOHN
DOES 1-7, whose names and identities
are unknown, individually and in their
capacity as governmental officers or
employees, peace officers, and/or agents
of the Colorado Springs Police
Department and/or the City of Colorado
Springs; LISA PIEL,
Defendants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
I. Introduction
On February 17, 2010, Mitchel Anderson was a passenger in a vehicle
stopped by Officers B. Worstell and C. Calkins of the Colorado Springs Police
Department. According to Anderson’s complaint, after the officers arrested the
driver of the vehicle for driving while intoxicated, and notwithstanding
Anderson’s extreme and apparent level of intoxication, the officers ordered him to
leave the scene, taking no steps to take him into protective custody or otherwise
ensure his safety. Later, while attempting to walk home, Anderson was struck by
a vehicle and sustained serious injuries. 1 Anderson brought suit in the District of
Colorado against Officers Worstell and Calkins, the Colorado Springs Police
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
1
Anderson died on September 3, 2011, during the pendency of this appeal.
His daughter, Plaintiff-Appellee Nicholl Anderson, was substituted as his
personal representative.
-2-
Department, and the City of Colorado Springs, as well as the driver of the vehicle
which struck him. The complaint asserted violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
various state tort theories for negligence, negligence per se, and willful and
wanton conduct. The officers moved to dismiss, arguing they were entitled to
qualified immunity for Anderson’s § 1983 claim and that Anderson’s state law
claims were barred under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. The district
court denied the motion. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
this court reverses.
II. Background
The following facts are accepted as true for purposes of analyzing
Anderson’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Teigen v.
Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072, 1078 (10th Cir. 2007). On the night of February 17,
2010, Anderson was one of two passengers in a vehicle driven by Daniel Clayton,
with whom he and the other passenger had been drinking for several hours. The
vehicle was stopped at around 8:50 pm by Officers Worstell and Calkins, who,
after conducting an investigation, arrested Clayton for driving while intoxicated.
At approximately 9:30 pm, the officers ordered Anderson to exit the vehicle and
“take a walk.” The officers thereafter impounded the vehicle. At the time
Anderson was told to leave the scene, he was heavily intoxicated, confused, and
disoriented. Because of his intoxication, while walking in what he believed to be
the direction of his home, Anderson was struck by a vehicle while attempting to
-3-
cross the street. As a result, he sustained serious injuries, including 21 broken
bones, coma, pain, psychosis, and severe mental incapacity. His injuries
necessitated amputation of his left leg.
Anderson’s complaint asserted ten claims for relief. Count 1 alleged
Officers Worstell and Calkins deprived him of his due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count 2 alleged the city
and the police department were liable for the officers’ alleged constitutional
violations due to policies regarding the handling of intoxicated individuals and
failure to properly train or supervise. Counts 3 and 4 asserted claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1981 and 1988. Counts 5, 6, and 7 asserted claims against Worstell and
Calkins under state tort law for negligence, negligence per se, and willful and
wanton conduct. Count 8 alleged the city and the police department were liable
for the state law claims against Officers Worstell and Calkins under the theory of
respondeat superior. Counts 9 and 10 asserted claims for negligence and
negligence per se against the driver of the vehicle that struck Anderson.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6), arguing the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted and the officers’ actions were protected by qualified immunity and the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA). The district court granted the
motion as to Counts 2, 3, and 4. The court denied the motion as to Count 1
“because there are factual disputes with respect to the degree of intoxication and
-4-
the plaintiff’s apparent danger to himself which preclude qualified immunity as
the claim has been pleaded.” As to the state law claims, Counts 5 through 8, the
court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plaintiff properly
complied with the CGIA’s notice of claim provisions. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the court denied the motion to dismiss.
III. Discussion
A. Jurisdiction
Initially, Anderson argues this court lacks jurisdiction over the officers’
appeal because the district court concluded there were unresolved issues of
material fact regarding whether the officers knew or should have known he was
intoxicated and posed a danger to himself or others when he was removed from
the vehicle. This argument is unpersuasive. “[A] district court’s denial of a
claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an
appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.
511, 530 (1985). Thus, this court has previously exercised jurisdiction over a
denial of a motion to dismiss when the defendants raised qualified immunity as an
affirmative defense. See Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1161–62 (10th Cir.
2011). “Even when the district court concludes issues of material fact exist, we
have reviewed the legal question of whether a defendant’s conduct, as alleged by
the plaintiff, violates clearly established law.” Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124,
-5-
1130 (10th Cir. 2001). Thus, the court has jurisdiction to determine whether
qualified immunity protects the officers from suit based on the facts as pleaded in
Anderson’s complaint.
B. Qualified Immunity
This court reviews the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based
on qualified immunity de novo, accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations in
the complaint as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Brown, 662 F.3d at 1162. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted).
When evaluating a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the court
employs a two part test, considering (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has
alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the
right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant[s’] alleged
misconduct.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (quotations
omitted). The court has discretion to determine which prong to address first “in
light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Id. at 236. For the law
to be clearly established “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit
decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts
must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.” Morris v. Noe, 672
F.3d 1185, 1196 (10th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). The plaintiff bears the
-6-
burden to convince the court the law was clearly established. Hilliard v. City &
Cnty. of Denver, 930 F.2d 1516, 1518 (10th Cir. 1991).
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S.
189, 197 (1989), the Supreme Court held “[a]s 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.” This court has subsequently recognized
two exceptions to this general rule, termed the “special relationship” exception
and the “state-created danger” theory, respectively. Gray v. Univ. of Colo. Hosp.
Auth., 672 F.3d 909, 923 (10th Cir. 2012). “By definition, the special
relationship theory necessarily only applies where a ‘custodial relationship’ exists
between the victim and the State.” Id. at 923 n.10. For a custodial relationship to
exist “the State’s exercise of control must so restrain an individual’s liberty that it
renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for
his basic human needs.” Id. (quotation and alteration omitted). Examples of
restraints which rise to this level are arrest, incarceration, institutionalization, or
placement in involuntary foster care. Id. at 923. Thus, “the restraint of liberty
necessary to invoke substantive due process protection under the special
relationship exception requires state action involving force, the threat of force, or
a show of authority, with the intent of exercising dominion and control over the
person.” Id. at 924. In the absence of a special relationship, “[t]he state-created
danger theory is a means by which a state actor might be held liable for an act of
-7-
private violence . . . provided the danger the state actor created, or rendered the
victim more vulnerable to, precipitated a deprivation of life, liberty, or property
in the constitutional sense.” Id. at 922.
The state-created danger theory is inapplicable, however, if the private
conduct which causes harm is merely negligent. Id. at 928–30. “This is because
the harm associated with a negligent act is never constitutionally cognizable
under the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 928. Thus, to make out a substantive due
process violation under the state-created danger theory, the private party must act,
at a minimum, with some degree of deliberateness. Id. “Reason dictates that if
state actors are not answerable under § 1983 for their own negligent acts, they are
not answerable under § 1983 where a private party’s underlying negligent act is
directly responsible for the harm.” Id. at 929–30 (emphasis omitted).
A panel of this court has previously addressed a qualified immunity defense
to a § 1983 claim which was substantially similar to Anderson’s. See Hilliard,
930 F.2d at 1517–18. In Hilliard, police officers ejected a heavily intoxicated
passenger from a vehicle which was impounded after its driver was arrested on
suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Id. at 1517. The passenger was later
robbed and sexually assaulted. Id. at 1518. She brought a § 1983 claim against
the officers, alleging their failure to take her into protective custody pursuant to
Colorado’s Emergency Commitment Statute violated her rights to substantive due
process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 1518. The panel concluded even
-8-
if a constitutional right was violated, it was not clearly established in the law at
the time of the officers’ actions. Id. at 1519.
Anderson points to no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit authority subsequent
to Hilliard which would indicate the due process rights he asserts were violated
have become clearly established. To the contrary, Gray indicates it is highly
unlikely the conduct which forms the basis of Anderson’s complaint amounts to a
constitutional violation. Anderson seeks to hold Officers Worstell and Calkins
liable for the injuries he suffered when he was hit by a car driven by a private
party. To do so, he relies on both the special relationship and state-created
danger exception to the general rule that state actors are not liable for failing to
protect a citizen from the acts of a private party. As the foregoing discussion of
Gray makes clear, however, neither of these exceptions are applicable. The
special relationship exception is inapplicable because at the time of his injuries,
Anderson’s liberty was not so restrained that he was unable to care for himself,
nor was he under the dominion and control of the officers through a show of
authority, force, or threat of force. Gray, 672 F.3d at 923–24. Rather, the
gravamen of his complaint is that he was injured due to the officers’ failure to
place sufficient restraints on his liberty. The state-created danger exception is
inapplicable because, as Anderson acknowledges on appeal, the complaint does
not allege he was a victim of private violence. Rather, Anderson alleges he was
injured due to the negligent acts of a third party.
-9-
Urging a contrary conclusion, Anderson cites language from Colorado’s
Emergency Commitment Statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-1-310(1)(a) (2009)
(repealed and relocated to § 27-81-111(1)(a) (Apr. 29, 2010)), and regulations
governing the Colorado Springs Police Department which he argues obligated the
officers to take him into protective custody. It is difficult to discern the precise
point Anderson seeks to raise with this argument from his briefing. That is, it is
unclear if Anderson argues the statute somehow illustrates the right he claims was
violated was clearly established or if he seeks to show the statute somehow
created a protected liberty or property interest which was violated by the officers’
conduct. 2 In either case, Anderson’s argument is unpersuasive. The plaintiff in
Hilliard also cited Colorado’s Emergency Commitment Statute in an attempt to
make out a violation of clearly established law. 930 F.2d at 1518. The panel
concluded it was not clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct that
the statute created a constitutionally protected liberty interest cognizable in a
§ 1983 action. Id. at 1519. Since Hilliard, the text of the Colorado Emergency
Commitment Statute has remained substantially unchanged, compare Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 25-1-310 (1991), with Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-1-310 (2009), and Anderson
has failed to identify any intervening authority clearly establishing a
constitutional right arising from the statute. Thus, Anderson has failed to
2
If the latter, Anderson’s argument is very likely foreclosed by Supreme
Court precedent. See Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748,
761–68 (2005).
-10-
demonstrate that a claimed violation of the Emergency Commitment Statute, by
itself, constitutes a clearly established violation of his substantive due process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is unclear from its order denying the officers’ motion to dismiss what the
precise grounds were for the district court’s ruling. While the court was correct
to conclude there were disputed issues of fact as to Anderson’s apparent level of
intoxication and danger to himself at the time of the stop, it is unclear how such
facts can be considered material in light of Anderson’s burden to show a violation
of clearly established law. As the foregoing discussion illustrates, Anderson has
failed to carry this burden. The district court’s denial of the officers’ motion to
dismiss Count 1 of Anderson’s complaint was therefore error.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying the motion to
dismiss Count 1 of Anderson’s complaint is reversed. Having thus concluded all
of Anderson’s federal claims should have been dismissed, we decline to address
the officers’ second claim of error concerning Anderson’s state tort claims.
Instead, on remand, the district court should consider whether to dismiss those
-11-
claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers of
America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,
484 U.S. 343, 349–50 (1988).
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-12-