Speakman v. Williams
| Decision Date | 06 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-1468,20-1468 |
| Parties | FIREFIGHTER BRAD SPEAKMAN, Ret.; SENIOR FIREFIGHTER TERRANCE TATE, Ret.; LIEUTENANT JOHN CAWTHRAY; KELLI ANN STARR-LEACH, as Administratrix of the Estate of Lieutenant Christopher M. Leach and as Guardian ad litem of A.L. and M.L.; BRENDAN LEACH; LAURA FICKES, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Senior Firefighter Jerry W. Fickes, Jr.; BENJAMIN FICKES; JOSHUA FICKES; SIMONE CUMMINGS, as Administratrix of the Estate of Senior Firefighter Ardythe D. Hope; ARYELLE HOPE; ALEXIS LEE; ARDAVIA LEE, Appellants v. DENNIS P. WILLIAMS, individually; JAMES M. BAKER, individually; ANTHONY S. GOODE, individually; WILLIAM PATRICK, JR., individually; CITY OF WILMINGTON, a municipal corporation |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Plaintiffs appeal from the orders entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting the respective motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by the various Defendants in this action. We will affirm.
II.
"This matter concerns the death of three Wilmington Fire Department ('WFD') firefighters and substantial injury to three other firefighters as a result of a house fire that occurred on September 24, 2016 in the City of Wilmington, DE." Speakman v. Williams, C.A. No. 18-1252-MN-MPT, 2019 WL 4058931, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2019) (citing JA115), R. & R. adopted as modified, 2019 WL 471939 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2019); 2020 WL 109073 (D. Del. Jan. 9, 2020); 440 F. Supp. 3d 376 (D. Del. 2020). The three injured firefighters—Firefighter Brad Speakman, Senior Firefighter Terrance Tate, and Lieutenant John Cawthray—as well as the estates and survivors of the three deceased firefighters—Lieutenant Christopher Leach, Senior Firefighter Jerry Fickes, and Senior Firefighter Ardythe Hope—filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court. They named five defendants: (1) Dennis P. Williams (who served as Mayor of Wilmington from 2013 to 2017); (2) James M. Baker (Williams's predecessor, who was Mayor from 2001 to 2013); (3) Anthony S. Goode (WFD Chief of Fire from 2013 until2017); (4) William Patrick, Jr. (Chief of Fire from 2007 until 2013); and (5) the City of Wilmington.1 Plaintiffs asserted a substantive due process "state-created danger" claim, a substantive due process "shocks the conscience" claim, and a substantive due process "maintenance of policies, practices and customs" claim. "Plaintiffs allege the injuries sustained were proximately caused by the policies and actions of Defendants regarding 'rolling bypass' [as well as understaffing and misrepresentations concerning their policies and actions,2] which Plaintiffs contend violate their substantive due [process] rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution." Id. (citing JA115).
Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In a report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motions to dismiss filed by Baker and Patrick be granted with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds and that the remaining three motions be granted in part and denied in part. The Magistrate Judge addressed a number of different issues, including the elements of the and "shocks the conscience" claims; the alleged maintenance of municipal policies, practices, and customs; the personal involvement requirement; the qualified immunity doctrine; the statute of limitations; the lack of standing on the part of the individual family members; and the political question doctrine. In particular, she considered whether Plaintiffs'allegations were sufficient to satisfy the "shocks the conscience" element of the cause of action. Concluding that this element triggered a deliberate indifference standard given the absence of a hyper-pressurized environment, the Magistrate Judge believed that Plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to meet the applicable standard (though she found that Plaintiffs had failed to state facts satisfying other elements of the claim) With respect to the second count, the Magistrate Judge likewise indicated that "Plaintiffs adequately state facts which support conduct that shocks the conscience against Mayor Williams and Chief Goode." Id. at *9. However, in considering the political question doctrine, which Williams, Goode, and Patrick each asserted as a defense, she specifically addressed the Supreme Court's ruling in Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992). "In Collins, the [Supreme] Court found that the administration of government programs involve[s] policy choices to be made by locally elected representatives rather than 'by federal judges interpreting the basic charter of Government for the entire country.'" Speakman, 2019 WL 4058931, at *14 () (quoting Collins, 503 U.S. at 129). "This conclusion is followed by the Court's finding that the Due Process Clause is neither 'a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions . . . [n]or does it guarantee municipal employees a workplace that is free of unreasonable risks of harm.'" Id. (quoting Collins, 503 U.S. at 129). In the end, the Magistrate Judge stated that the action could not be maintained against Williams because of the political question doctrine, while indicating that this doctrine did not apply to the claims against Patrick and Goode based on the limited facts before her.
Various objections were filed by the parties, and the District Court ultimately disposed of this matter in a series of orders granting the Defendants' motions and dismissing the claims against them without prejudice. In the process, it addressed the various issues considered by the Magistrate Judge (in particular, it concluded that the political question doctrine did not apply to substantive due process claims against a municipality and municipal officials). However, we focus on its last order and memorandum opinion specifically addressing the claims against Williams, Goode, and the City of Wilmington.
The District Court determined that, under Collins and subsequent case law addressing substantive due process claims arising out of the public employment context, Plaintiffs had failed to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right. It stated that, "[i]n the Third Circuit, a government employee may, despite Collins, bring a substantive due process claim against his employer 'if the [municipality] compelled the employee to be exposed to a risk of harm not inherent in the workplace.'" Speakman v. Williams, 440 F. Supp. 3d 376, 384 (D. Del. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Kedra v. Schroeter, 876 F.3d 424, 436 n.6 (3d Cir. 2017)). According to the District Court, "[s]uch behavior is 'conscience shocking' and claims based on such behavior are outside the scope of those prohibited by Collins." Id. (citing Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 427-31 (3d Cir. 2006)). The District Court explained that the alleged risk faced by the firefighters, even if it may have been increased by the conduct of Defendants, was still inherent in their employment as firefighters because the increase was not so severe that the employees would almost certainly suffer immediate injury or death. The District Courtalso opined that the failure to abide by legislative mandates or standards of practice did not alter this outcome. It further indicated that there was no suggestion that the firefighters were compelled (either by threats of job loss or otherwise) to be exposed to such risks.
Although given an opportunity to file an amended complaint, Plaintiffs elected to stand on their complaint and filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
Although the parties, the Magistrate Judge, and the District Court have raised a number of issues regarding the claims alleged in this case, we dispose of this appeal on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right.3 See, e.g., Kaucher, 455 F.3d at 423.
As the District Court recognized, "the Supreme Court has 'always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this [uncharted] area are scarce and open-ended.'" Speakman, 440 F. Supp. 3d at 382 (quoting Collins, 503 U.S. at 125). In Collins, the Supreme Court relied on this reluctance to decide that the Due Process Clause does not provide "a remedy for a municipal employee who is fatally injured in the course of his employment because thecity customarily failed to train or warn its employees about known hazards in the workplace." Collins, 503 U.S. at 117. "Neither the text nor the history of the Due Process Clause supports petitioner's claim that the governmental employer's duty to provide its employees with a safe working environment is a substantive component of the Due Process Clause." Id. at 126. Addressing the plaintiff's deliberate indifference theory, the Collins Court was unpersuaded that "the city's alleged failure to train its employees, or to warn them about known risks of harm, was an omission that can properly be characterized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense." Id. at 128 (). "Decisions concerning the allocation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial