K.B. v. Waddle, et al., No. 13-3000 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a juvenile sexually assaulted by another juvenile, filed suit against several public employees, alleging that they were aware of a threat by the assailant but failed to take steps to prevent the abuse by notifying plaintiff's parents. Plaintiff and the assailant were not under state supervision at the time of the assault, plaintiff was not in state custody when she voluntarily participated in the Center's after-school program, and there was no evidence that plaintiff and the assailant were even under the supervision of any of the officials or their agencies at the time of the assault at the pool. The court concluded that the facts alleged do not establish a violation of the Due Process Clause so the officials are entitled to judgment on the federal claim; a state's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not violate the Constitution; in this case, neither the custodial duty exception nor the creation of danger exception applied; and the officials are entitled to official immunity as to plaintiff's state-law negligence claims where public employees are not entitled to immunity for torts committed when they are acting in a ministerial capacity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims.
Court Description: Civil Case - civil rights. Claims of due process violations against officials who were told of threat of sexual assault against a minor and who failed to inform the minor's parents before victim was assaulted, were properly dismissed. Failure to protect an individual against private violence does not violate the constitution and the exceptions did not apply here. Victim was not in state custody, state did not create the danger, and neither the victim nor the assaulter weres under state supervision. Officials did not take affirmative action to increase danger to victim. Officials were entitled to official immunity on state law negligence claims because the duty to act was discretionary.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.