Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendant’s violated plaintiff's substantive due process rights by improperly responding to her four domestic abuse complaints lodged against another police officer to whom she had dating relationship. Due process clause generally confers no affirmative right to govt. aid, even if such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty or property interests, and defendants’ failure to protect her against private violence does not constitute due process violation. Moreover, plaintiffs’ contention that defendants displayed only tepid response to her complaints was not supported by record, where: (1) officer also alleged that he was victim of violence by plaintiff; (2) defendants repeatedly informed officer that his conduct was unacceptable; and (3) defendants did not do anything to indicate that officer could abuse plaintiff with impunity. Also, DeShaney, 489 U.S. 189, foreclosed plaintiff’s argument that she was entitled to relief under state-created danger doctrine based on claim that defendants failed to properly intervene in her domestic abuse complaints.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Due Process