Greer v. Shoop, 97-1565

• Decision Date: 02 April 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-1565,97-1565
• Citation: 141 F.3d 824,1998 WL 148844
• Parties: Henry GREER, Administrator of the Estate of Mora Patricia Greer, Appellant, v. Stanley D. SHOOP; Ronald Dohrman; Thomas L. Frisch, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 824

141 F.3d 824

Henry GREER, Administrator of the Estate of Mora Patricia Greer, Appellant, v. Stanley D. SHOOP; Ronald Dohrman; Thomas L. Frisch, Appellee.

No. 97-1565.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 1997.

Decided April 2, 1998.

Martha M. McMinn, Sioux City, IA, argued, for Appellant.

H. Loraine Wallace, Des Moines, IA, argued, for Appellee.

Before McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, ¹ Chief District Judge.

WEBB, Chief District Judge.

In this appeal, appellant Henry Greer ("Greer") argues that the district court ² erred when it found that the defendants, all employees of the State of Iowa, were entitled to qualified immunity from Greer's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

For purposes of resolving the summary judgment motion before the district court, the defendants accepted as true the facts stated in Greer's amended complaint. Neither party to this appeal has objected to the district court's recitation of the facts. We therefore adopt the district court's recitation of the facts for purposes of resolving the summary judgment motion on appeal and restate them here as background.

Plaintiff Henry Greer is the administrator of the estate of Mora Patricia Greer. Defendants Stanley D. Shoop, Ronald Dohrman and Thomas L. Frisch are employed by the State of Iowa as probation and parole officers of the Third Judicial District Department of Correctional Services. In March 1991, and at all times relevant to this action, Perry Stevens was subject to the control and custody of the Third Judicial District Department of Correctional Services due to his conviction and sentence for the commission of one or more felonies in the State of Iowa. As a result of his conviction and sentence, Stevens was under the control and authority of defendants due to their positions as probation and parole officers.

On March 28, 1991, defendants placed parolee Perry Stevens into Mora Greer's home. At the time, Stevens was Mora Greer's boyfriend. Before Stevens was incarcerated, he and Mora Greer had engaged in sexual intercourse. At the time of Stevens' parole in March of 1991, he had been diagnosed as suffering from AIDS. Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that Stevens was infected with the HIV virus. Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that upon his release from incarceration Stevens was highly likely to engage in sexual relations with Mora Greer.

Defendants failed to warn Mora Greer that Stevens was infected with HIV. Mora Greer would not have permitted Stevens to stay in her home if she had been informed of Stevens' HIV-positive status, and she would not have engaged in sexual relations with Stevens after his release from prison had she known he was HIV-positive. Stevens transmitted HIV to Mora Greer following his parole into her home. As a result of this HIV transmission, Mora Greer developed AIDS. Stevens died of AIDS in July 1993. Mora Greer died of AIDS after this lawsuit was filed. Greer v. Shoop, No. C95-4023-MWB (N.D.Iowa Jan. 29, 1997).

The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Greer appeals the district court's decision.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds de novo. Parrish v. Mallinger, 133 F.3d 612 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664, 666 (8th Cir.1992)). We apply the same legal standard at the summary judgment level as the district court. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "mandates the entry of summary judgment ... against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "Summary judgment 'should not be granted unless the moving party has established the right to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy.' " Vacca v. Viacom Broadcasting of Missouri, Inc., 875 F.2d 1337, 1339 (8th Cir.1989) (quoting Snell v. United States, 680 F.2d 545, 547 (8th Cir.1982)).

Two requirements must be satisfied in order to defeat a defendant's claim of qualified immunity at the summary judgment level. Rowe v. Lamb, 130 F.3d 812, 814 (8th Cir.1997). First, the plaintiff must allege a specific violation of a constitutional right. Id. Second, the allegedly violated constitutional right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. The standard for whether a constitutional right is clearly established is objective and well-defined by the case law of this circuit. "For a constitutional right to be clearly established, the contours of that right must be sufficiently clear and specific that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." See McMorrow v. Little, 103 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir.1997); Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1048 (8th Cir.1989).

In this case, Greer alleges that the defendants violated Mora Greer's due process rights by failing to warn her of the fact that Stevens was HIV-positive when he was paroled into her home in 1991. Greer argues that the defendants' failure to warn Mora Greer of Stevens' medical condition violated her due process rights by way of the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability which according to Greer, requires state officials to protect citizens from private violence in instances such as this. Greer further alleges that it was clearly established in 1991 that the actions of the defendants were violative of Mora Greer's due process rights. The district court held that Greer had sufficiently alleged a violation of Mora Greer's constitutional rights under the state-created danger theory, thus satisfying the first prong of our analysis. The district court went on to hold, however, that the state-created danger theory as applied to these facts in 1991 was not clearly established enough to find that a reasonable official would have known that failing to inform Mora Greer of Stevens' medical condition violated her constitutional rights.

This court first analyzed the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability in Wells v. Walker, 852 F.2d 368 (8th Cir.1988). In Wells, a store owner was murdered by a prisoner who was released early and dropped off by prison officials at the victim's store, which also served as a bus stop. Id. at 369. The victim's estate sued the prison officials alleging that they violated the victim's constitutional rights by not warning her of the prisoner's violent nature. Id. at 369-70. We noted that an individual's constitutional due process rights may be implicated when there is a special relationship between the individual and the state or "when the state affirmatively places a particular individual in a position of danger the individual would not otherwise have been in" absent the state action. Id. We held that the plaintiff had adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right under the state-created danger theory. Id. at 370. We went on to hold, however, that the prison officials' conduct was merely negligent, and therefore, could not be a source of constitutional liability. Id.

Shortly after Wells was decided, the United States Supreme Court addressed the state-created danger theory in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989). In DeShaney, the Court faced the question of whether state officials violated the constitutional rights of a child who was physically abused by his father when the officials did not remove the child from the father's custody after gaining knowledge of the father's violent propensities. Id. at 191, 109 S.Ct. at 1001. The Court held that the state did not have a constitutional duty to protect the child from his father's attacks. Id. The Court reasoned that states do not have a general constitutional duty to protect their citizens from private violence. Id. at 198, 109 S.Ct. at 1004-05. The Court stated, however, that in certain limited circumstances, such as where the state played a part in making a particular individual more vulnerable to private violence, the Constitution imposes upon the state affirmative duties of care or protection with respect to the individual. Id. at 201, 109 S.Ct. at 1006. The Court went on to state that:

The most that can be said of the state functionaries in this case is that they stood by and did nothing when suspicious circumstances dictated a more active role for them. In defense of them it must also be said that had they moved too soon to take custody of the son away from the father, they would likely have been met with charges of improperly intruding into the parent-child relationship, charges based on the same Due Process Clause that forms the basis for the present charge of failure to provide adequate protection.

The people ... may well prefer a system of liability which would place upon the State and its officials the responsibility for failure to act in situations such as the present one. They may create such a system.... But they should not have it thrust upon them by this Court's expansion of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Id. at 203, 109 S.Ct. at 1007.

Following DeShaney, this court had another opportunity to address the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability. See Freeman v. Ferguson, 911 F.2d 52 (8th Cir.1990). In Freeman, a woman and her daughter were murdered by the woman's estranged husband. Id. at 53. The administratrix of the victims' estates brought suit against the chief of police and other city officials for failing to enforce an existing restraining order which restricted the husband's contact with the victims. Id. at 53-54. We noted...