CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘due process’

McKinney Due Process Analysis Alive and Well in the Eleventh Circuit

Posted on: April 9th, 2019

By: Dana Maine

This will be a short blog: “The question before us is whether a litigant in this Circuit has a substantive-due-process claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the alleged conduct is the unlawful application of a land-use ordinance. The answer to that question is a resounding ‘no’ – an answer that this Court delivered in McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994), 24 years ago and has affirmed ever since.”  Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, 915 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2019).  The opinion is a good read for land use practitioners in all circuits.

As for people interested in Georgia law, note that the Georgia Supreme Court has followed the legislative vs. administrative/adjudicative distinction from the federal law in the 2017 trilogy of land use cases – City of Cumming v. Flowers, 300 Ga. 820 (2017), Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 301 Ga. 635 (2017), Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, 302 Ga. 597 (2017).

For assistance with this or any other local government matter, please contact Dana Maine, [email protected], or any other member of our National Government Practice Group, a list of which can be found on our website – www.fmglaw.com.

 

Split in the Circuits May Force SCOTUS to Revisit Kingsley

Posted on: March 14th, 2019

By: Ali Sabzevari 

In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), the Supreme Court held that a pretrial detainee may prevail on a § 1983 excessive force claim if he or she shows that the force used was objectively unreasonable, regardless of whether the officer had a subjective intent to cause the detainee harm. In reaching this decision, the Court granted more protection to pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause than is given to convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment, which still requires proof of a subjective intent to cause harm before there is a constitutional violation. This make sense because a pretrial detainee is innocent until proven guilty, and so the detainee cannot be subjected to any form of punishment. On the other hand, it is well-settled that a convicted prisoner may be punished so long as the punishment is not “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment.

Recently, we have seen an uptick in cases whereby pretrial detainees are contending that the holding in Kingsley applies to any and all § 1983 claims, not just those founded on allegations of excessive force. But this is not the holding in Kingsley. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit in Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) applied such an interpretation, opening the door for this creative argument. Other circuits, such as the Eleventh Circuit, have denied such an extension despite recent opportunities to do so. Johnson v. Bessemer, 741 F. App’x 694, 699 n.5 (11th Cir. 2018).

The fact remains that the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether to extend this objective reasonableness standard of review to cases of pretrial detainees which do not involve the use of excessive force, e.g., cases challenging medical treatment or conditions of confinement. The current circuit split could mean that the issue might be back in front of the Supreme Court at any time.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Ali Sabzevari at [email protected].

 

Can Governments be Liable for Mass Shootings under the Constitution?

Posted on: February 11th, 2019

By: Phil Savrin

The recent tragedies of mass shootings have spawned litigation over the civil liabilities of state governments for failing to protect members of the public from harm, particularly when there were advance warning signs that police departments overlooked or ignored. To evaluate whether States can be liable under the Constitution for such conduct we need to reach back 30 years to a decision by the Supreme Court called DeShaney. In that case, county officials had allowed an abused child to remain in a household despite knowledge of mistreatment, after which the boy was left permanently disfigured. In considering a civil rights claim brought on his behalf under the due process clause, the Supreme Court reasoned that the Constitution places limitations on the government’s ability to act and does not affirmatively require it to provide services that benefit the public. It is up to the individuals States to allocate resources to provide for public safety, in other words, as opposed to an obligation mandated by the Due Process Clause. That said, the Supreme Court reasoned that it is only when the State takes some action that puts a person in peril that the Constitution imposes “some corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being.”

Cases applying DeShaney’s reasoning are often heart-wrenching, as they tend to involve very egregious injuries that could have been avoided had law enforcement officers acted on knowledge they possessed. The most extreme example applying DeShaney can be found in the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Town of Castle Rock, where police officers refused the desperate pleas of a citizen to arrest her estranged husband who had violated a restraining order, resulting in the father’s murder of the couple’s three daughters. These harms could have been avoided had the State acted to intercede, yet it is only when the State by its conduct affirmatively puts the person in danger that the State has a constitutional obligation to protect that individual from harm.

Which brings us to the question of mass shootings such as the incidents at the Pulse nightclub in 2016 where a gunman killed 49 people or the high school in Florida in 2018 where a student opened fire killing 17 persons. In lawsuits that followed, allegations were made that government officials either ignored warnings or intentionally failed to act, thereby violating the constitutional rights of the victims. In both circumstances, however, the federal courts applied DeShaney to conclude that without danger created affirmatively by the State’s conduct, there is no constitutional right to protection where the harm begins and ends with the actions of a private citizen.

The absence of a constitutional claim in these circumstances does not, of course, mean that there can be no remedy of any sort. What these cases hold instead is that any such remedy exists by reference to state law as the federal Constitution is a bulwark against governmental interference in the public arena and is not a guarantor of safety for the citizenry.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Phil Savrin at [email protected].

School Shootings: Is There a Constitutional Duty to Protect Students?

Posted on: January 16th, 2019

By: Jake Daly

Sadly, our nation’s schools are not free from shootings and other violent crimes. When such crimes occur on private property, the laws of many states provide the victims a remedy (money damages) against the owner of the property and/or the operator of the business located on the property. But what about crimes that occur on public property, particularly a school campus?

For example, Nikolas Cruz killed 17 students and school officials and injured 17 more during a shooting rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018. Fifteen students who survived the incident, but who claim to have suffered psychological injuries because of it, sued Broward County, Andrew Medina (a school monitor), Robert Runcie (school superintendent), Scott Israel (Broward County Sheriff), Jan Jordan (captain with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office), and Scot Peterson (school resource officer) for violating their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had a constitutional duty to protect them from Cruz and that they violated this duty by intentionally disregarding warnings about Cruz, by maintaining a policy of allowing “killers to walk through a school killing people without being stopped,” and by failing to provide adequate training to school officials. The defendants denied liability on the ground that there is no constitutional duty to protect students from being harmed by third parties.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and was assigned to Judge Beth Bloom, who was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2014. In her order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, Judge Bloom relied on United States Supreme Court precedent holding that the Due Process Clause is “a limitation on the State’s power to act, not . . . a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.” In other words, “nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors,” such as Cruz. Nevertheless, the Due Process Clause does impose a duty on state actors to protect people who are in their custody from harm by third parties. But, as Judge Bloom ruled, this duty does not apply to this case because students are not considered to be in the custody of the state such that they have been deprived of their ability to take care of themselves. Accordingly, the defendants did not violate the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights.

This case serves as a good reminder that the defendant in any case must have owed the plaintiff a legal duty to act or refrain from acting in a specific way. A moral duty will not suffice. Liability cannot be based on how innocent or sympathetic the plaintiff is. Nor can liability be based on the fact that a tragic event has occurred. There is no question that the plaintiffs in this case were innocent and “deserving,” but that is not enough. There must have been a legal duty. The plaintiffs in this case lost because there is no constitutional duty owed by school officials to protect students from harm inflicted by third parties. To some, this rule may be seen as unfair and contrary to common sense, but there are good policy reasons for it. After all, the purpose of the Due Process Clause was to protect people from the state, not to ensure that the state protected them from each other.

For additional information, please contact Jake Daly at [email protected] or (770) 818-1431.