## Facts

- Roy Salinas was 15 years old and on adult probation supervised by the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department (MCAPD) after assaulting a corrections officer while detained by the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections.
- Salinas pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted aggravated assault on a corrections officer (a class 6 offense) and received a deferred jail term, meaning he was not immediately taken into custody to serve the term.
- While awaiting the start of that deferred jail term, Salinas participated in an armed robbery during which he shot and killed Russell Hamblin.
- The Hamblins (Russell Hamblin’s surviving spouse and minor children) filed a wrongful-death action against the State of Arizona and MCAPD, alleging MCAPD had a duty to supervise Salinas and that its supervision was grossly negligent.
- The Hamblins claimed that when Salinas violated probation terms, MCAPD should have arrested him or sought a warrant, and that taking those steps would have prevented the killing.
- The superior court initially dismissed the claims on immunity grounds. On a prior appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded, noting causation remained to be addressed.
- After discovery on remand, MCAPD moved for summary judgment arguing (1) insufficient evidence of gross negligence and (2) insufficient, non-speculative evidence that any supervision failure proximately caused Hamblin’s death.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the State and MCAPD, and the Hamblins appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Hamblins presented non-speculative evidence that MCAPD’s alleged failures to respond to Salinas’s probation violations were a proximate cause of Russell Hamblin’s death.
2. Whether the record could support a finding that MCAPD’s supervision of Salinas amounted to gross negligence (given that summary judgment was sought on that ground as well).

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the State and MCAPD.
- The court held the Hamblins failed to raise a triable issue on proximate cause because their theory required speculation that different MCAPD actions would have led to probation-violation proceedings, revocation, and incarceration before the robbery-murder.
- Because causation was lacking as a matter of law, summary judgment was proper regardless of the parties’ disputes about the supervision record and gross negligence.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff opposing summary judgment must produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find each element of the claim; allegations and conjecture do not create a triable issue.
- Proximate cause requires evidence of a probable causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury; showing that different conduct might have prevented the harm is not enough.
- When a claimed causal chain depends on how multiple decisionmakers would have exercised judgment (for example, whether a probation officer would file a violation petition, whether a judge would issue a warrant or revoke probation, and whether incarceration would occur in time), causation is not established without evidence that those steps likely would have occurred in time to prevent the injury.
- Courts view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party on summary judgment, but may grant judgment when the asserted link between conduct and harm rests on speculation.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the State and MCAPD because the Hamblins did not present evidence showing it was more likely than not that different probation supervision would have resulted in Salinas being taken into custody before the armed robbery in which Russell Hamblin was killed; the proposed causal chain depended on speculative assumptions about discretionary actions by probation authorities and the court.


Hamblin v. State; Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, 143 P.3d 388 (2006)