## Facts

- Jennifer Braddock suffered repeated abuse and threats from her former partner, James Hudson, and obtained multiple Tennessee protective orders against him.
- Braddock and her family repeatedly reported alleged violations of the protective orders to Memphis police and requested enforcement.
- The plaintiffs alleged officers routinely failed to arrest Hudson, treated complaints as noncriminal, and did not adequately investigate or document violations.
- In 2003, Susan Hudson (James Hudson’s sister) allegedly drove Hudson to Braddock’s home knowing of his history and threats.
- Hudson forced entry, killed Braddock and two friends, and then killed himself; Braddock’s minor child was present and later placed with Braddock’s mother.
- Braddock’s child (through a next friend) and Braddock’s mother sued Memphis officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting substantive due process (failure to protect) and procedural due process (entitlement to enforcement under Tennessee law).

## Issues

1. Whether officers’ alleged failure to enforce protective orders against a private abuser stated a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim under a “special relationship” or “state-created danger” theory.
2. Whether Tennessee’s protective-order and domestic-violence arrest provisions created a Fourteenth Amendment property interest in enforcement sufficient to support a procedural due process claim.
3. Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the officers’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.
- The court held the complaint did not plausibly allege a substantive due process violation because the Constitution generally imposes no duty on police to protect individuals from private violence, and neither exception applied.
- The court held no procedural due process property interest existed in enforcement of the protective orders because arrest decisions required “reasonable cause” and thus involved officer discretion.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling, effectively ending the federal damages claims against the individual officers at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- The Due Process Clause generally does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect individuals from violence by private actors.
- A “special relationship” duty arises only when the state restrains an individual’s liberty through custody or a comparable limitation; obtaining a protective order does not create such custody.
- The “state-created danger” doctrine requires affirmative state action that creates or increases risk, not mere inaction or non-enforcement, and typically requires conscience-shocking conduct.
- A procedural due process property interest requires a legitimate claim of entitlement; statutory schemes that condition enforcement on an officer’s judgment (e.g., “reasonable cause”) are generally discretionary and do not create an entitlement to arrest or enforcement.
- Qualified immunity bars damages claims unless the pleaded facts show violation of a clearly established constitutional right that would have been apparent to a reasonable officer in the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit concluded that alleged non-enforcement of domestic-violence protective orders, without custodial restraint or affirmative danger-creating conduct, did not violate substantive due process, and Tennessee’s enforcement scheme did not create a procedural due process property interest in arrest; the officers were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.


Hudson v. Hudson, 475 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2007)