Armijo Ex Rel. Chavez v. Wagon Mound Public Schools
1998 WL 751097, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 27608, 159 F.3d 1253 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State officials may be liable for violating a person's substantive due process rights under a "danger creation" theory if their affirmative conduct places an individual in a foreseeably dangerous situation that results in harm, provided the conduct is egregious enough to "shock the conscience." A "special relationship" imposing a duty to protect does not exist between a school and a student once the student is released from the school's physical custody.
Facts:
- Philadelfío Armijo was a sixteen-year-old special education student at Wagon Mound Public Schools (WMPS) with known psychological issues, including impulsivity and depression.
- Armijo had previously told school aide Pam Clouthier, "maybe I'd be better off dead" and "I'm just going to shoot myself."
- School counselor Tom Herrera and aide Pam Clouthier knew Armijo had access to firearms at his home.
- On December 1, 1994, after Armijo was reprimanded, he threatened a teacher, the teacher's son, and the teacher's car in the presence of Principal Mary Schütz and Herrera.
- Schütz immediately suspended Armijo and instructed Herrera to drive him home.
- This action violated the WMPS handbook, which required in-school suspension if a student's parents would not be at home.
- Neither Schütz nor Herrera notified Armijo's parents of the suspension or verified that an adult was present at the home.
- Herrera dropped Armijo off at his empty house and left, having observed that Armijo was "very angry."
- Later that day, Armijo’s parents found him in their bedroom, deceased from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Procedural Posture:
- Philadelfío Armijo's parents sued the Wagon Mound Public Schools and several individual school officials (Schütz, Herrera, and Clouthier) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
- The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the individual defendants violated Armijo's substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The individual defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court denied the individual defendants' motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the defendants' knowledge of the danger and the reasonableness of their actions.
- The individual defendants (Appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with Armijo's parents as Appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do public school officials who suspend a special education student with known suicidal tendencies, and then send him home alone in violation of school policy where he commits suicide, create a danger that violates the student's substantive due process rights, thereby forfeiting their qualified immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, Circuit Judge.
No, as to the special relationship theory, but yes, as to the danger creation theory for defendants Schütz and Herrera. The court held that no "special relationship" giving rise to a constitutional duty to protect existed, because any custodial relationship between the school and Armijo ended when he was dropped off at his home and was no longer under involuntary restraint. However, the court found that the law regarding the "danger creation" theory was clearly established. Under this theory, state officials may be liable if their affirmative conduct creates or increases a danger to an individual and their actions "shock the conscience." Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the actions of Schütz and Herrera—suspending a distraught student with known suicidal tendencies, violating school policy by sending him to an empty house, and knowing he had access to firearms—could be found by a jury to be reckless, conscience-shocking conduct that increased the risk of harm to Armijo. Therefore, Schütz and Herrera were not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Defendant Clouthier, however, was entitled to qualified immunity because she was not involved in the decision to suspend Armijo or send him home and thus did not create the danger.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the "danger creation" exception to the general rule that the state has no duty to protect individuals from private harm. It establishes that while a school's custodial relationship ends upon a student's release, school officials can still be held liable if their affirmative disciplinary actions knowingly place a vulnerable student in a worse, more dangerous position. The ruling distinguishes between mere inaction and affirmative acts that increase risk, setting a precedent that makes it more difficult for officials to claim qualified immunity in cases of student self-harm that is foreseeably linked to their decisions. It emphasizes that officials' conduct must "shock the conscience," but suggests that ignoring known suicide risks while taking disciplinary action could meet that high standard.
