Rhoten v. Dickson ( 2007 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
October 23, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
DANIELLE RHOTEN, as an
individual and as heir at law of
Xavier Rhoten, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 06-3346
(D.C. No. 04-CV-4160-SAC)
FRANK PA SE, as an agent and (D . Kan.)
employee of Topeka, Kansas, and as
an individual; C ITY O F TO PEKA,
KANSAS,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
B RU CE D IC KSO N , IV ,
Defendant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY and A ND ER SO N, Circuit Judges, and BROR BY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Plaintiff Danielle Rhoten appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of defendants City of Topeka, Kansas, and Frank Pase, a
Topeka Police Department lieutenant, on her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violation of her right to substantive due process. Exercising jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I.
Around 7:00 p.m. on February 5, 2004, Bruce Dickson, IV, was driving on
Topeka Boulevard in Topeka at speeds exceeding the posted 35 m.p.h. speed
limit, even though the streets were slick, icy, and slushy. Lt. Pase noticed
M r. Dickson’s speeding, quick lane changes, and passing of vehicles and deemed
him to be a danger to the public. Lt. Pase pursued M r. Dickson in his unmarked,
dark blue police car without using either the lights or the siren and without
contacting the police dispatcher. Before Lt. Pase was able to stop M r. Dickson,
M r. Dickson hit a van in which M s. Rhoten was a passenger. She was severely
injured and her unborn child, whose birth was expected in two weeks, died.
M s. Rhoten filed a complaint in district court alleging that because Lt. Pase
did not use lights and a siren or summon assistance when engaging in a
high-speed chase, he created a dangerous condition resulting in her injury and in
the violation of her substantive due process rights. She also alleged that the City
of Topeka customarily allowed police officers to speed without activating lights
-2-
or sirens, allowed officers to ignore state laws and city regulations for activating
lights and sirens during emergency operations, and did not discipline officers for
doing so, thereby placing her in danger in violation of her substantive due process
rights.
The City of Topeka and Lt. Pase both filed motions for summary judgment.
Lt. Pase argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no
constitutional violation as there was no causal connection between the accident
and his conduct. In addition, he asserted that because his conduct did not shock
the conscience and because he did not take affirmative action placing M s. Rhoten
in danger, he did not violate her substantive due process rights.
The district court granted summary judgment to Lt. Pase and the City of
Topeka after concluding that M s. Rhoten’s constitutional rights were not violated.
Construing the facts in the light most favorable to her, the court found that there
was no genuine issue of material fact whether Lt. Pase’s conduct influenced
M r. Dickson’s conduct or was causally related to M s. Rhoten’s injuries, because
M r. Dickson was unaw are that Lt. Pase was pursuing him. In addition, the court
concluded that Lt. Pase’s failure to use his lights or siren did not raise a question
of fact whether he created a danger that resulted in M s. Rhoten’s injuries, because
that danger already existed by virtue of M r. Dickson’s driving. As an alternative
basis for granting summary judgment, the court decided that Lt. Pase’s acts did
not shock the conscience of the court. Lastly, the court concluded that resolution
-3-
of the constitutional claim against Lt. Pase also defeated the constitutional claim
against the City of Topeka. 1 M s. Rhoten appealed.
II.
A.
Before considering the merits of this appeal, we first address procedural
concerns. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(7) requires an appellant’s
brief to contain “a statement of facts relevant to the issues submitted for review
with appropriate references to the record.” The Statement of the Facts section of
M s. Rhoten’s brief, however, states only the following: “See Appendix,
hereinafter ‘Aplt. App.’ at pp. 27-59.” Aplt. Br. at 3. These appendix pages refer
to her response to the City of Topeka’s motion for summary judgment and
therefore do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 28(a)(7). See also 10th Cir. R.
28.4 (disapproving of incorporating by reference statement of facts in district
court pleading and noting that incorporation does not satisfy Rule 28(a)).
In addition, the argument section of her brief lacks appropriate references
to relevant record authority; she again cites to her response to the City of
Topeka’s summary judgment motion rather than to record evidence to support her
arguments. Her citation to a district court brief does not fulfill the
Fed. R. App. P. 28(e) requirement for citations to the appendix. Cf. Doeblers’
1
The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any
pending state-law claims.
-4-
Pa. Hybrids, Inc. v. Doebler, 442 F.3d 812, 820 n.8 (3d Cir. 2006) (deciding party
cannot fulfill obligation to provide record support by citing to statement of
undisputed facts in summary judgment motion).
Although we may dismiss M s. Rhoten’s appeal due to her failure to follow
the rules of appellate procedure, we decline to do so. See MacArthur v. San Juan
County, 495 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). Given the appendices provided by
both parties, we have a sufficient record to review the merits of this appeal and to
conclude M s. Rhoten’s arguments are without merit. See id.; Fryar v. Curtis,
485 F.3d 179, 182 n.1 (1st Cir. 2007). W e, however, will resolve any uncertainty
regarding the facts against her. See Alberty-Velez v. Corporacion de Puerto Rico
Para La D ifusion Publica, 361 F.3d 1, 4 n.1 (1st Cir. 2004) (summary judgment
case). 2
B.
M s. Rhoten argues that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment to Lt. Pase and the City of Topeka and in concluding that they did not
violate her substantive due process rights. “W e review the district court’s grant
of summary judgment de novo.” Graves v. Thom as, 450 F.3d 1215, 1217
(10th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions,
answ ers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together w ith the affidavits, if
2
W e remind counsel of the duty to follow the appellate and Tenth Circuit
rules.
-5-
any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “W here the
record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct.
1769, 1776 (2007) (quotation omitted).
In reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment, we first
consider the claims against Lt. Pase. In response to the claims against him,
Lt. Pase asserted an entitlement to qualified immunity. W hen resolving the
qualified immunity question, we first consider whether the facts alleged show that
Lt. Pase’s conduct violated a constitutional right. See id. at 1774. Only if we
determine that there has been a constitutional violation will we proceed to the
next step in the qualified immunity analysis and decide whether that right was
clearly established within the specific context of this case. See id. W hether
M s. Rhoten alleged conduct by Lt. Pase that violated a constitutional right is a
question of law we review de novo. Radecki v. Barela, 146 F.3d 1227, 1229
(10th Cir. 1998). Because we conclude after de novo review that M s. Rhoten did
not allege the violation of a constitutional right, we need not address the next step
in the qualified immunity analysis. See Graves, 450 F.3d at 1218.
“Substantive due process protects individuals against ‘arbitrary action of
government’ that deprives a citizen of life, liberty or property ‘whether the fault
lies in a denial of fundamental procedural fairness . . . or in the exercise of power
-6-
without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental
objective.’” Perez v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte County/Kan. City, Kan.,
432 F.3d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting County of Sacramento v. Lewis,
523 U.S. 833, 845-46 (1998)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2971 (2006). “The
ultimate standard for determining whether there has been a substantive due
process violation is whether the challenged government action shocks the
conscience of federal judges.” M oore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036, 1040 (10th Cir.
2006) (quotations omitted). “[I]n a high-speed automobile chase aimed at
apprehending a suspected offender . . . only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to
the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct
shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation.” Lewis,
523 U.S. at 836.
Because the accident in this case involved a third party, M r. Dickson,
M s. Rhoten argues that Lt. Pase created a danger for her in violation of her
substantive due process rights by engaging in a high speed pursuit without using
lights and siren. “The danger creation theory is an exception to the rule that state
actors are not liable for the violent acts of third parties.” M oore, 438 F.3d at
1042. It “makes a state official liable for the private violence of third parties if
that official created the danger that caused the harm and the official’s conduct
was conscience shocking.” Id. The danger-creation theory “applies only when a
state actor affirmatively acts to create, or increases a plaintiff’s vulnerability to,
-7-
danger from private violence.” Id. (quotation omitted). A six-part test applies to
analyze claims under the danger-creation theory:
a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the charged state entity and the
charged individual actors created the danger or increased plaintiff’s
vulnerability to the danger in some way; (2) plaintiff was a member
of a limited and specifically definable group; (3) defendants’ conduct
put plaintiff at substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate
harm; (4) the risk was obvious or known; (5) defendants acted
recklessly in conscious disregard of that risk; and (6) such conduct,
when viewed in total, is conscience shocking.
Christiansen v. City of Tulsa, 332 F.3d 1270, 1281 (10th Cir. 2003) (quotation
omitted). As reflected by this six-part test, the danger-creation theory is reserved
for exceptional circumstances. See Ruiz v. M cDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1184
(10th Cir. 2002). O rdinary negligence does not shock the conscience. Id.“Rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude
of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking.” Id. (quotation
omitted).
The district court concluded that Lt. Pase did not violate M s. Rhoten’s
substantive due process rights because there was no causal connection between
the accident and his behavior, he did not create a danger resulting in her injuries,
and his behavior did not shock the conscience. M s. Rhoten argues that there is a
genuine issue of material fact whether M r. Dickson believed that he was being
chased such that a causal connection existed. The basis for the argument is a
recorded statement he made to his insurance adjuster. Apparently, M s. Rhoten
-8-
planned to use this statement, which is not included in the appendices of either
party, to infer that M r. Dickson believed, contrary to his deposition testimony,
that he could have been pursued or chased by someone who might have been
Lt. Pase and that the chasing could have influenced his driving, thereby causally
connecting him to the accident. The district court excluded the statement as
hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), because it was offered to prove the truth of
the matter asserted. M s. Rhoten argues that the district court abused its discretion
by excluding the statement since the statement was admissible against a
party-opponent under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A).
Rule 801(d)(2)(A) provides that a statement is not hearsay if it “is offered
against a party and is . . . the party’s own statement.” M s. Rhoten did not offer
M r. Dickson’s statement as an admission against him; she offered it as an
admission against Lt. Pase and the City of Topeka. Thus, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in excluding this inadmissible hearsay. See Argo v. Blue
Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193, 1199 (10th Cir. 2006)
(“W e review a district court’s evidentiary rulings at the summary judgment stage
for abuse of discretion.”). A nd we therefore do not consider this inadmissible
statement w hen reviewing the district court’s order granting summary judgment.
See Gross v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 53 F.3d 1531, 1541 (10th Cir. 1995) (“It is
well settled in this circuit that we can consider only admissible evidence in
reviewing an order granting summary judgment.”).
-9-
But even assuming the statement was admissible, the district court decided
that it failed to support M s. Rhoten’s position, because it did not show that
M r. Dickson knew he was being followed by Lt. Pase. The court decided that the
statement along with M r. Dickson’s deposition testimony and the other record
evidence did not raise a question of fact whether Lt. Pase’s actions were a factor
in causing M s. Rhoten’s injury. W e agree. First, a statement that is not included
in the appendices cannot be a basis for a determination that there is a genuine
issue of material fact. Second, M r. Dickson’s statement and deposition testimony
both indicate he did not believe he was being chased. In his statement,
M r. Dickson indicated that he saw a white car–not a dark blue car like Lt. Pase
was driving–make a U-turn, move fast, and weave in and out of traffic, but he did
not know if the car was chasing him. Aplee. Supp. App., Vol. 1 at 223-24
(quoting M r. Dickson’s statement to insurance adjuster in M s. Rhoten’s response
to the City of Topeka’s motion for summary judgment). He did not pay much
attention to the car and did not know if a private person was tracking him down.
Id. He did not think the car w as a police car. Id. at 235-36. Similarly,
M r. Dickson testified at his deposition that he “was never under the impression
[he] was being chased.” Id. at 86; id., Vol. II at 468; see id., Vol. I at 92; id.,
Vol. II at 471. No one driving behind him caused him to change the manner of
his driving. Id., Vol. I at 98; id., Vol. II at 472. Indeed, he only learned that
-10-
Lt. Pase was chasing him after the accident. See id., Vol. I at 86; id., Vol. II
at 468-69.
In addition, contrary to her argument, M s. Rhoten has alleged no facts
showing affirmative conduct by Lt. Pase that created or increased danger to her or
conduct that shocks the conscience. “Affirmative conduct for purposes of § 1983
should typically involve conduct that imposes an immediate threat of harm, which
by its nature has a limited range and duration. Ruiz, 299 F.3d at 1183.
M s. Rhoten’s claim is that she suffered injuries due to Lt. Pase’s failure to turn on
his lights and siren while pursuing M r. Dickson, who denied knowing he was
being pursued. Lt. Pase’s conduct therefore did not impose an immediate threat
of harm to M s. Rhoten, and she cannot point to affirmative actions by Lt. Pase
that created or increased the danger to her. Nor has she shown any outrageous
conduct by Lt. Pase that shocks the conscience.
M s. Rhoten also argues that Topeka police department policy creates a
practice of intentional and reckless conduct to use police vehicles to engage in
high speed pursuit without activating the siren or lights, thereby denying other
roadway users notice of an impending danger. According to M s. Rhoten, that
policy allowed Lt. Pase to speed without activating his lights and siren and later
deny that he was engaged in a pursuit. Nothing in the appendices indicates that
M r. Dickson believed that Lt. Pase was pursuing him. Even if police policy
influenced Lt. Pase’s actions, M r. Dickson was solely responsible for the
-11-
accident, Lt. Pase did not intend to harm M s. Rhoten, and Lt. Pase’s conduct was
not conscience shocking. Because M s. Rhoten did not raise a genuine issue of
material fact that Lt. Pase caused the accident, created a danger, or acted in a
conscience-shocking manner, we conclude that the district court properly granted
summary judgment to Lt. Pase.
The district court also properly granted the City of Topeka’s motion for
summary judgment. “A municipality may not be held liable where there was no
underlying constitutional violation by any of its officers.” Camuglia v. City of
Albuquerque, 448 F.3d 1214, 1223 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).
W e AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Entered for the Court
W ade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-12-