Substantive due process claim proceeds to trial in wrongful death case

Remember substantive due process? We learned about it in law school. It says that the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes an implied claim for a substantial rights violation even if the Constitution says nothing about it. The courts are skeptical about substantive due process claims, but people do win these claims from time to time. This is one of those cases.

The case is J.M. v. Sessions, issued on December 23. J.M. is C.B.'s mother. C.B., who was autistic and various disorders, died at the age of 34 while living at a state-run facility, Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment. She says that caretakers at Valley Ridge ignored her son's pleas for help and obvious signs of heart failure, causing his death. The summary judgment record shows that C.B.'s health deteriorated quickly in his final days, but the staff did not take these symptoms seriously. There was also a cover-up, as one staffer lied about how frequently she watched over C.B. on the night of his death. 

The district court's order granting summary judgment for the state is reversed and there will be a trial in this case. The Supreme Court has held that substantive due process requires state officials to take good care of people housed in a state institution. This includes inmates and people like C.B. The leading cases in our jurisdiction on this issue are Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), and Society for Good Will v. Cuomo, 737 F.3d 1239 (2d Cir. 1984). As the Court of Appeals puts it, "once a person is in the state's custody and dependent on the state for their essential needs, the state acquires a duty to provide for those needs in a manner that does not deprive that person of constitutional rights." These rights do not extend to the public at large, however, as shown by DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), one of the most hated Supreme Court rulings all time, holding that the police could not be sued for failing to protect a boy who was severely beaten by his father after the family had repeatedly reported the father's abuse to county social workers. Without a "special relationship" between the victim and the police, there is no such claim.

This is not a DeShaney case but a Youngberg case, the Second Circuit (Kahn, Parker and Carney) holds. Society for Good Will was decided more than 40 years ago, but the Second Circuit uses this case to reiterate its holding "that anyone in a state institution has a right to safe conditions regardless of whether they are voluntary or involuntary residents." Good Will remains good law post-DeShaney. We have an extended discussion on this topic as the Court of Appeals reviews substantive due process cases over the last 35 years to see if the Supreme Court's analysis in DeShaney cuts Good Will off at the knees. It does not. That means J.M.'s case against the state will proceed to trial.