## Facts

- Kylie Ann Turczyn repeatedly reported threats from her former boyfriend, Thomas Anderson, to the City of Utica Police Department’s domestic-violence investigator, Elizabeth Shanley.
- Turczyn filed between five and 10 complaints with Shanley and stated that Anderson had repeatedly threatened to kill her.
- Neither Shanley nor the City of Utica Police Department took protective action in response to the reported threats.
- On June 22, Anderson broke into Turczyn’s home, fatally shot her, and then killed himself.
- Barbara McGregor, as administratrix of Turczyn’s estate, sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Shanley, the City of Utica, and the City of Utica Police Department.
- The complaint alleged that defendants violated Turczyn’s substantive due process rights by failing to protect her from Anderson and, as to the City, by failing to adequately train officers.

## Issues

1. Whether the City of Utica Police Department had a legal existence separate from the City such that it could be sued under § 1983.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against Shanley and/or the City based on failure to protect Turczyn from a private actor’s violence.
3. Whether the allegations satisfied the “state-created danger” doctrine (as an exception to the general no-duty-to-protect rule) rather than alleging only nonfeasance.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly stated municipal liability against the City under *Monell* based on an alleged failure to train officers.
5. Whether Shanley was entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the claims against the City of Utica Police Department because the department was not a suable entity separate from the City.
- On the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court dismissed the § 1983 substantive due process theory premised on defendants’ failure to protect Turczyn from Anderson’s private violence.
- The court dismissed the *Monell* failure-to-train claim against the City for insufficient allegations of an actionable constitutional violation and/or a qualifying municipal policy, custom, or deliberate choice that caused the alleged harm.
- The court addressed qualified-immunity principles in evaluating the individual-capacity claim against Shanley in connection with dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- The Due Process Clause generally does not impose an affirmative constitutional duty on state actors to protect individuals from private violence.
- A substantive due process claim based on private violence may proceed only in limited circumstances, such as when the state has custody over the victim (a “special relationship”) or when state actors affirmatively create or increase a danger (the “state-created danger” doctrine).
- Allegations of inaction, without affirmative conduct that increases the risk to the plaintiff beyond the preexisting danger, do not satisfy the state-created danger doctrine.
- Municipal liability under § 1983 requires nonconclusory facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or failure to train amounted to deliberate fault and was a moving force behind a constitutional violation; municipalities are not liable on a respondeat superior theory.
- Under New York law, a municipal police department typically lacks a legal identity separate from the municipality and is not a proper defendant.

## Conclusion

In *Turczyn ex rel McGregor v. City of Utica*, the court dismissed the Utica Police Department as a non-suable entity and dismissed the estate’s § 1983 claims alleging a substantive due process violation and municipal failure-to-train liability arising from police inaction in response to reported domestic-violence threats that culminated in Turczyn’s death.


Turczyn ex rel McGregor v. City of Utica, 2014 WL 6685476 (2014)