Simmons v. City of Inkster
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12625, 2004 WL 1497814, 323 F. Supp. 2d 812 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the state has no general affirmative duty to protect individuals from private violence unless the state takes an individual into custody or its affirmative actions create or increase the danger to that individual.
Facts:
- Shala Enwana Gee Simmons had a personal protection order against her husband, Dwayne Gee, and was attempting to physically separate from him.
- Mr. Gee told Ms. Simmons that if she left for church and did not return, he would kill their minor children, whom he was keeping at their home in the City of Inkster.
- Ms. Simmons went to the Inkster Police Department, reported that her husband was irrational, violent, possessed a handgun, and had threatened her and their children.
- Inkster police officers were dispatched to accompany Ms. Simmons to her home so she could retrieve personal belongings.
- Upon arriving at the home, officers encountered Mr. Gee, who stood with his hands in the pockets of his jacket.
- The officers did not search Mr. Gee for weapons, pat him down, or segregate him from Ms. Simmons while she moved about the house.
- While Ms. Simmons was in the bedroom on her third trip to retrieve items, Mr. Gee walked past the officers, entered the bedroom, and drew a .380 revolver.
- In plain view of the officers, Mr. Gee shot and killed Ms. Simmons before turning the weapon on himself.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative of the Estate of Shala Enwana Gee Simmons filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Inkster in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The complaint alleged that the City was liable for violating Ms. Simmons's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to its failure to adequately train and supervise its police officers.
- The Defendant, City of Inkster, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The Plaintiff conceded the Fourth Amendment claim, leaving the court to consider only the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim.
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 department's failure to search, disarm, or restrain a domestic abuser, while escorting a victim to her home to retrieve belongings, constitute a violation of the victim's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under either the 'in-custody' or 'state-created danger' exceptions?
Opinions:
Majority - Edmunds, District Judge
No, the police department's inaction does not constitute a violation of the victim's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. The general rule established in DeShaney v. Winnebago is that the state has no constitutional duty to protect individuals from private violence. The facts of this case do not fall within either of the two recognized exceptions to this rule. The 'in-custody' exception does not apply because the officers never took Ms. Simmons into custody or otherwise restrained her liberty; they were present at her request to assist her. The 'state-created danger' exception is also inapplicable because it requires an affirmative act by the state that creates or increases a risk of harm. The plaintiff's claims are based on the officers' failures to act—such as failing to search or segregate Mr. Gee—which do not meet the 'affirmative act' requirement. The argument that the officers lulled Ms. Simmons into a false sense of security does not establish that they made her less safe than she was before their arrival.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high legal threshold required to hold state actors liable for failing to prevent private violence. It strictly construes the 'state-created danger' doctrine, clarifying that only affirmative government acts, not omissions or failures to act, can trigger a constitutional duty to protect. The ruling underscores that even when police are aware of a specific threat and are present at the scene, their failure to neutralize that threat does not, by itself, create § 1983 liability. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for victims of domestic violence to succeed in lawsuits against police departments for failing to provide adequate protection during police-supervised encounters.
Unlock the full brief for Simmons v. City of Inkster