JOSE MURGUIA V. HEATHER LANGDON, ET AL, No. 21-16709 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff called 911 seeking emergency mental health assistance for the mother of his children, with whom he lived and had five children. This call set in motion a chain of events that ultimately led to the death of Plaintiff’s ten-month-old twin sons at their mother’s own hand.
Plaintiff brought a Section 1983 involving the application of the “state-created danger” doctrine in the context of a welfare check; the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action for failure to state a claim, and remanded. The panel first made clear that the only two exceptions to the general rule against failure-to-act liability for Section 1983 claims presently recognized by this court were the special-relationship exception and the state-created danger exception. The panel, therefore, rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion that the failure to comply with a legally required duty can give rise to a substantive due process claim. The panel further held that the district court correctly held that the special-relationship exception did not apply here.
The panel next held that Plaintiffs’ state-created danger claim against deputies failed because Plaintiffs failed to allege facts from which one could plausibly conclude that Defendants created or enhanced any danger to the twins. The panel held that Plaintiffs adequately stated their Section 1983 claims against the City of Tulare Police Sergeant under the state-created danger exception. Finally, because the panel reversed the dismissal of some of Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims against the social worker and Sergeant, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Monell claims against the County and City of Tulare.
Court Description: Civil Rights. In an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving the application of the “state-created danger” doctrine in the context of a welfare check, the panel reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action for failure to state a claim, and remanded. According to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Jose Murguia called 911 seeking emergency mental health assistance for Heather Langdon, with whom he lived and had five children. This call set in motion a chain of events that ultimately led to the death of Langdon’s and Jose’s ten- month-old twin sons, at Langdon’s own hand. Over the course of that day, Langdon interacted with three groups of law enforcement officers. First, Tulare County Sheriff’s Department Deputies Lewis and Cerda arrived at the Murguia home where they separated Jose from Langdon, leaving her with the twins; the deputies then allowed Langdon and a neighbor (Rosa) to take the twins to MURGUIA V. LANGDON 3 a church and prevented Jose from following. Second, a City of Visalia police officer drove Langdon and the twins from the church to a women’s shelter. Third, City of Tulare police officers, acting in part based on information provided by a County of Tulare social worker, transported Langdon and the twins from the shelter to a motel to spend the night. Left unsupervised at the motel where she continued to suffer from a mental health crisis, Langdon drowned the twins. The panel first made clear that the only two exceptions to the general rule against failure-to-act liability for § 1983 claims presently recognized by this court were the special- relationship exception and the state-created danger exception. The panel therefore rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion that the failure to comply with a legally required duty, without more, can give rise to a substantive due process claim. The panel further held that the district court correctly held that the special-relationship exception did not apply here because Defendants did not have custody of the twins. The panel next held that Plaintiffs’ state-created danger claim against deputies Lewis and Cerda failed because Plaintiffs failed to allege facts from which one could plausibly conclude that Defendants created or enhanced any danger to the twins. The panel could not say, however, that amendment would be futile given Plaintiffs’ vague allegations and because the district court applied an incorrect “custody” standard—asking whether the twins were in Langdon’s custody before and after Lewis and Cerda intervened rather than asking whether the twins were rendered more vulnerable by Lewis’s and Cerda’s actions. Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court’s dismissal order with an instruction to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. 4 MURGUIA V. LANGDON The panel held that Plaintiffs adequately stated their § 1983 claims against City of Tulare Police Sergeant Garcia under the state-created danger exception. The panel agreed with Plaintiffs that Garcia increased the risk of physical harm to the twins by arranging a room for them at a motel, transporting Langdon and the twins from the shelter to the motel, and leaving them there. The panel further concluded that Plaintiffs pleaded facts plausibly demonstrating that Garcia acted with deliberate indifference to the risk that Langdon would physically harm the twins. The panel similarly concluded that Plaintiffs adequately alleged a state-created danger claim against social worker Torres. When Torres provided Garcia with false information, she rendered the twins more vulnerable to physical injury by Langdon by eliminating the most obvious solution to ensuring the twins’ safety: returning them to Jose’s custody. Given the allegations that Torres knew about Langdon’s history of abuse, the panel concluded that the complaint alleged that Torres was aware of the obvious risk of harm Langdon presented to the twins and acted with deliberate indifference. Addressing Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendants’ wrongful affirmative acts deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, the panel rejected assertions that Lewis and Cerda deprived Plaintiffs of their rights to familial association by temporarily separating Jose and the twins, and deprived Jose of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations of wrongful acts did not require a separate analysis. Finally, because the panel reversed the dismissal of some of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against social worker Torres and Sergeant Garcia, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Monell claims against the County and MURGUIA V. LANGDON 5 City of Tulare, reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and remanded for further proceedings. Dissenting in part, Judge Ikuta stated that the majority’s expansion of the state-created danger doctrine into the realm of tort law conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and is out of step with this Court’s broad state-created danger doctrine. The majority made three mistakes. First, the majority opinion found a substantive due process violation in the absence of any abusive exercise of state authority. Second, the majority opinion indicated that officials may be liable for failing to take affirmative actions to protect children from a dangerous parent. But, as DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989), held, that failure to protect is not an egregious abuse of state-assigned power. Finally, the majority imposed liability for substantive due process violations when the plaintiffs’ allegations amounted to mere negligence. 6 MURGUIA V. LANGDON
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 18, 2023.
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.