Kirk Tanner and Deanna Tanner, Individually and as Natural Guardians, Parents, and Next Friends of Breanne Tanner, Christopher Tanner, and Kyler Tanner v. County of Lenawee, Nathan Andrew Adams, Christopher John Hunt, Cletus B. Smith, and Larry Richardson

Citations: 452 F.3d 472; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15566Docket: 05-1107

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; June 22, 2006; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kirk and Deanna Tanner, along with their children, filed a lawsuit against Lenawee County and several law enforcement officials following a violent incident on October 13, 2001. The Tanners had taken in Deanna's sister, Cindy Baker, who was fleeing a domestic dispute with her husband, Keith Baker. After Baker, intoxicated and aggressive, arrived at their home multiple times that night, the Tanners called 911 at 2:59 a.m., informing the operator that he was drunk and armed. Despite the urgency, the police response was delayed, allowing Baker to force his way into the home, where he shot and killed Cindy, shot Kirk and Deanna, and then committed suicide. The Tanners survived their injuries and alleged a violation of their constitutional right to substantive due process due to the defendants' handling of the situation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the Tanners did not sufficiently demonstrate a violation of their rights. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, upholding the district court's decision.

Officers Adams and Hunt were dispatched to the Tanner residence after a 911 call reported an intoxicated individual claiming to have a weapon and attempting to enter the home. Unable to locate the address initially, they identified the Tanner home by observing a vehicle with brake lights in the driveway. Deanna Tanner mistakenly informed the 911 operator that her husband was backing down the driveway, but this was not communicated to the officers. 

As the officers approached, Baker, the driver, reversed but then moved toward the house. Officer Hunt concluded Baker was the person they needed to stop, while Officer Adams did not share this assessment. Different accounts of the ensuing events emerged: Officer Hunt stated he and Adams exited the vehicle as Baker stepped out, with Hunt drawing his gun when Baker ran and brandished his own firearm. Hunt pursued Baker but fell and heard gunshots shortly after. 

Officer Adams recounted that he ordered Baker to stop and show his hands, but Baker ran towards the house, prompting Adams to draw his weapon and pursue him. However, the Sheriff's Incident Report noted that Adams ran in the opposite direction to cut off Baker instead of following him directly. Witness Kirk Tanner observed Baker loading his gun and claimed the officers were stationary in their vehicle as Baker approached the house, contradicting the officers' accounts. Kirk’s 11-year-old son, KC Tanner, also testified that the officers did not verbally engage Baker as he ran. The Tanners' Second Amended Complaint alleges that Adams and Hunt commanded Baker to stop but failed to enforce their order after he did not comply.

Baker forcibly entered the Tanner home by shooting through a sliding glass door, hitting Kirk Tanner multiple times. Kirk retreated to the bedroom where his wife, Deanna, and son, KC, were present. Baker followed, shooting Deanna, leading Kirk to defend himself with a piece of wood, which resulted in Baker shooting him again. Deanna and KC escaped, while Kirk lost consciousness in the living room. Seven-year-old Breanne Tanner and her ten-year-old brother Kyler were hiding with their aunt, Cindy Baker, when Baker fatally shot Cindy after pulling her from the closet. Breanne was injured by a stray bullet. Kyler helped Breanne and later witnessed Baker attempt suicide with a second gun. The children informed responding officers that Baker had shot himself. 

Despite receiving initial reports, the Emergency Response Team (ERT), led by Incident Commander Cletus Smith, did not enter the home immediately, awaiting further instructions. When they finally entered, they rescued Kirk, who was airlifted to the hospital, while both Cindy and Keith Baker died at the scene.

In February 2003, the Tanners filed a Second Amended Complaint in Lenawee County Circuit Court alleging four causes of action: negligence and gross negligence by the individual defendants (Adams, Hunt, Richardson, and Smith); violations of their rights under the Michigan Constitution; violations of their substantive due process rights under the U.S. Constitution; and claims against the Lenawee County Sheriff's Department for inadequate policies that failed to protect the Tanners.

Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where the court remanded the Tanners' state-law claims to the Lenawee County Circuit Court, retaining only two federal constitutional claims. The Lenawee County Sheriff's Department was dismissed as it is not a legal entity that can be sued. In August 2004, after extensive discovery, the defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment, asserting no genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding they owed no duty to protect or rescue the Tanners.

The standard of review for a district court's grant of summary judgment is de novo, requiring the court to determine if there are genuine issues of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view evidence and draw inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, assessing whether there is sufficient disagreement to warrant jury submission or if one party must prevail as a matter of law.

For the Tanners to succeed on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Officers Adams and Hunt, they must establish that state actors deprived them of a federal right. The key issue is whether the officers violated the Tanners' substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling in DeShaney v. Winnebago County clarified that a state's failure to protect against private violence typically does not violate the Due Process Clause, except when the plaintiff can show: (1) an affirmative act by the state that created or increased the risk of violence, (2) a special danger specifically affecting the plaintiff, and (3) the state's awareness of the specific danger. The Tanners invoke this "state-created-danger exception" to argue that their substantive due process rights were infringed.

Officers Adams and Hunt allegedly increased the danger to the Tanners by responding to a 911 call, blocking Baker in the driveway, and failing to take action as he approached their home with a loaded gun. There is conflicting evidence regarding the officers' actions during this incident, with the district court concluding they yelled at Baker and pursued him, while the Tanners claim they merely watched. Despite this disagreement, the court found that the factual dispute does not materially affect the case's outcome, as only relevant disputes that impact the suit under governing law prevent summary judgment. 

The Tanners argue that the officers' only affirmative actions were responding to the 911 call and driving into the driveway, which they claim increased the risk to the family. However, the court stated that the state-created-danger exception does not apply when police merely respond to a 911 call. Imposing liability in such cases could deter prompt police responses. The Tanners reference the case of May v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners, where officers’ failure to act after responding to a 911 call was deemed to have emboldened an assailant. However, the court indicated that this precedent does not support the Tanners' claim in their situation.

The court declines to apply the May decision to the current case, noting that it is unpublished and not binding. The May opinion lacks allegations or evidence that the officers knew or should have known their actions endangered Deborah, which is necessary to establish the state-created-danger exception. The plaintiff's assertion that the officers' actions emboldened the attacker does not legally satisfy this exception. Furthermore, the May case involved a motion to dismiss, requiring acceptance of the plaintiff's allegations, while the present case is under summary judgment review, where such allegations are not simply accepted. 

The Tanners claim the officers’ actions instilled a belief in Baker that he could act without police intervention, but they have not provided evidence to support this claim, failing to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court cites Rule 56(e), which requires the nonmoving party to produce specific facts for trial. Additionally, the Tanners have not established that the officers knew their actions specifically endangered them. The record shows no evidence that the officers recognized Baker as the driver or that their presence would provoke Baker into using a weapon. 

Any remaining factual disputes are not material and do not prevent summary judgment, leading to the conclusion that Officers Adams and Hunt are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Regarding Sheriff Richardson and ERT Incident Commander Smith, the Tanners argue they violated a duty to protect by establishing a perimeter that restricted Kirk's actions and hindered potential rescue efforts. The court finds this analogy lacking merit, as it does not align with established cases involving personal liberty restraint.

Setting up a perimeter around the Tanner house did not infringe on Kirk's autonomy, as evidenced by his wife and children fleeing the home unhindered. The government's duty to protect individuals arises only when it restricts their freedom to act independently, not merely from knowledge of their situation. The Tanners’ claim that police actions obstructed emergency medical personnel from rescuing Kirk was appropriately dismissed by the district court, as there is no constitutional right to state-provided rescue services, and the Due Process Clauses do not guarantee governmental aid in emergencies. They referenced the unpublished case of Beck v. Haik, where the court acknowledged that preventing private rescue efforts might establish liability under Section 1983, yet it concluded that the county's policy did not violate constitutional rights due to the lack of a private rescuer present in the Tanner case. Unlike Beck, where trained civilian divers were prohibited from assisting, no comparable private rescuer was available for Kirk, and any assumptions about others' willingness or ability to help were unsupported, as officers could not ascertain their qualifications. This distinction underscores the lack of constitutional violation in the actions of the officers involved.

Evidence indicates that Sheriff Richardson and Officer Smith were not directly responsible for the perimeter set around the Tanner house, which hypothetically could have hindered a private rescue attempt. Upon arrival, Richardson transferred command to Smith, who was the Incident Commander, but Smith was under the authority of ERT Commander Creswell, who ultimately controlled the ERT's actions, including the decision to deploy the entry team. Consequently, neither Richardson nor Smith violated the Tanners' constitutional rights by establishing the perimeter, as they did not restrict Kirk's ability to act independently, limit his liberty, or obstruct any private rescue efforts. As a result, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, because no individual officer violated the Tanners' rights, claims against Lenawee County also fail legally, as established in Scott v. Clay County. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.