Morin v. Moore
2002 WL 31251724, 309 F.3d 316, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22082 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state actor's failure to protect a citizen from private violence does not violate the Due Process Clause under the state-created danger theory unless the state actor acted with deliberate indifference by knowingly disregarding an excessive risk to a specific, known victim. However, state actors may still be liable under state tort law for negligent entrustment if they provide a dangerous individual with access to a firearm, even without an express grant of permission.
Facts:
- The Harlingen Police Department came into possession of an AK-47 assault rifle that was supposed to be destroyed.
- Police Chief Jim Schoepner permitted Officer Joseph Vasquez to take possession of the rifle.
- In September 1997, Officer Vasquez transferred or made the weapon available to Officer Ralph Moore.
- Officer Moore stored the assault rifle in the bedroom of his son, Ernest Moore.
- Officer Moore knew his son Ernest was a psychologically unstable drug user who revered Nazi ideology.
- Ernest was upset that his ex-girlfriend, Julie Cox, was in a new relationship with Dan Morin.
- On July 7, 1998, Ernest procured the rifle from his bedroom.
- Ernest opened fire on Dan Morin, Margarita Flores, and Delia Morin, killing Margarita Flores and Delia Morin.
Procedural Posture:
- The Morin families filed separate complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Texas tort law against the City of Harlingen, two police officers, and the police chief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and on qualified immunity grounds.
- A magistrate judge issued a report recommending the dismissal of all claims for failure to state a constitutional injury and failure to state valid state-law claims.
- The Dan Morin plaintiffs objected to the magistrate's report, while the Donald Morin plaintiffs did not file timely objections.
- The district court conducted a de novo review, adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations, and dismissed all of the Morins' claims with prejudice.
- The Morins, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's conduct of allowing a department-issued assault rifle to be stored in his home, where it is obtained and used by his psychologically unstable son to harm others, create liability for the officer and the city under the state-created danger theory of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, J.
No. The officer's and city's actions do not give rise to a constitutional claim under the state-created danger theory because the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show the officers acted with deliberate indifference. To establish a violation of substantive due process under this theory, a plaintiff must show that state actors created or increased a danger and acted with deliberate indifference, which requires actual knowledge of and disregard for an excessive risk to a specific victim's health and safety. The Morins' allegations, while demonstrating negligence, do not show that Officer Moore or other officials knew of a specific risk of harm to the Morins in particular. The government's actions at most left the victims in an already dangerous situation, but did not, in the constitutional sense, 'create an opportunity that would not otherwise have existed.' However, the court reversed the dismissal of the state-law claims for negligent entrustment and ordinary negligence against Officer Moore, finding that Texas law could hold him liable. Under Texas law, providing access to a firearm to a person known to be unstable or reckless can constitute negligent entrustment, and permission can be implied from the circumstances, such as storing the weapon in the son's bedroom.
Analysis:
This case highlights the high threshold for establishing a constitutional tort under the state-created danger theory in the Fifth Circuit. It reinforces that mere negligence or even gross negligence by a state actor leading to private violence is insufficient; a plaintiff must plead and prove deliberate indifference to a specific, known threat. The decision contrasts the demanding standard for § 1983 liability with the more accessible standards of state common law torts like negligent entrustment. By allowing the state claims to proceed, the court clarifies that while the Constitution does not provide a remedy for this type of official carelessness, traditional state law can still offer recourse for victims.
Unlock the full brief for Morin v. Moore