Wittkowski Ex Rel. Wittkowski v. State, Corrections Department
103 N.M. 526, 710 P.2d 93 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not create an affirmative constitutional duty for a state to protect citizens from harm caused by escaped prisoners unless a special relationship exists between the state and the victim. Furthermore, under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, sovereign immunity is not waived for corrections officials' alleged negligence in classifying and supervising inmates, as they are not considered "law enforcement officers" and the negligent operation of a building waiver is limited to premises liability.
Facts:
- Ross David Thomas and Eddie Lee Seward, two prisoners with documented histories of violence, psychosis, and prior escape attempts, were inmates at the New Mexico State Penitentiary.
- Despite their histories, prison officials classified them as minimum trustees.
- The inmates were assigned to work at a prison dairy operation with minimal supervision and allegedly inadequate security, including poor lighting and fencing.
- On March 1, 1982, Thomas and Seward escaped from the facility.
- New Mexico State Police were notified of the escape within two hours but did not inform authorities in the neighboring state of Colorado.
- The escapees crossed into Colorado.
- Later that day, Thomas and Seward robbed a liquor store in Colorado and shot and killed an employee, Roland H. Wittkowski.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative and survivors of Roland H. Wittkowski filed a wrongful death lawsuit in a New Mexico district court against the State of New Mexico, its Department of Corrections, the Secretary of Corrections, the prison warden, and the State Police.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
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 state's negligent classification and supervision of prisoners, and subsequent failure to warn another state of their escape, give rise to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the New Mexico Tort Claims Act for a death caused by the escapees?
Opinions:
Majority - Neal, J.
No. A state is not liable under either § 1983 or the New Mexico Tort Claims Act for injuries caused by escaped prisoners under these circumstances. For the § 1983 claim, the court held that the state did not deprive the victim of life within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing Martinez v. California, the court reasoned that the Constitution is a 'charter of negative liberties' that restrains state action but does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect citizens from harm by private actors. As the victim was a randomly selected member of the general public, with whom the state had no special relationship, there was no constitutional right to protection. For the Tort Claims Act claims, the court found that sovereign immunity was not waived. The Secretary of Corrections and prison warden are not 'law enforcement officers' under the Act's definition. The Department of Corrections is a governmental entity, not an employee, and thus also not a 'law enforcement officer.' The waiver for negligent 'operation or maintenance of any building' applies only to premises liability claims arising from physical defects in a building, not to negligent supervision of inmates. Finally, the State Police did not breach a specific statutory duty owed to the victim by failing to notify Colorado authorities, as the relevant statutes are for the benefit of inter-agency cooperation, not for the protection of specific individuals in other states.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for holding states liable for the actions of third parties under § 1983, affirming the principle from Martinez v. California that there is no general constitutional right to state protection from crime. By distinguishing the victim as a member of the 'public at large' rather than someone with a 'special relationship' to the state, the case limits the scope of constitutional torts. Additionally, the court's narrow interpretation of the waivers in the New Mexico Tort Claims Act demonstrates how sovereign immunity can shield governmental entities from liability for operational negligence, such as inmate classification and supervision, absent a clear and specific statutory exception.
