Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-police officer’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds plaintiff (15-year old female’s) section 1983 action, alleging that defendant, in responding to 911 call that involved plaintiff and three males, improperly left plaintiff, who was intoxicated, with said males under circumstances where defendant called off another police officer who had also responded to said call, and where plaintiff was subsequently sexually assaulted by one of said males. Plaintiff failed to identify any existing case law that would have required defendant to protect plaintiff against private violence under allegations of instant complaint. Moreover, plaintiff failed to state viable due process claim since: (1) State’s failure to protect individual against private violence does not generally establish any due process claim; (2) any state-created danger exception did not apply, if record showed that defendant merely stood by and did nothing to prevent private violence; and (3) defendant’s decision to leave plaintiff with said males placed her in no worse position than that in which she would have been placed had defendant not acted at all. Fact that instant dismissal occurred before any discovery took place did not require different result.