Action under 42 USC § 1983 for violation of plaintiff’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; Handling of a dangerous dog retrieval; “State-created danger” doctrine; Whether there was an “affirmative act”; McQueen v Beecher Cnty Schs; Summar ex rel Summar v Bennett; Whether defendant-animal control officer’s actions “directly increased” plaintiff’s vulnerability to danger by a third-party; Municipal liability

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that plaintiff-Steeb’s substantive due process claim against defendant-animal control officer (Ehart) was properly dismissed where Steeb failed to plead an affirmative act sufficient to invoke the state-created danger doctrine. After he was disfigured and injured during a dog attack, Steeb sued Ehart and defendant-City of Battle Creek under § 1983 and Michigan tort law. Steeb alleged that Ehart knew the dog he was called to retrieve was dangerous, but had Steeb’s friend (F) place the dog in the containment area in the pickup truck Ehart drove to the scene. After showing F “how to close the gate to the containment area once the dog was inside[,]” Ehart allegedly returned to the cab of the truck. The dog then attacked F and mauled Steeb when he tried to save her. The district court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Steeb’s state-law claims. The court reviewed its precedent on the state-created danger doctrine and held that Steeb’s claim failed where he could not show that Ehart engaged in “‘an affirmative act that create[d] or increase[d] the risk’ that the plaintiff would experience private acts of violence.” The court found it significant that F, who knew the dog was dangerous, “voluntarily assumed” the risk of a dog attack when she attempted to coax the dog out of the house and secure it in the truck. “When the dog in fact attacked her, Steeb tried to intervene, and the dog mauled him too. But due to [F’s] knowing choice, the tragic circumstances alleged in the complaint fall short under our precedents of plausibly alleging that Officer Ehart’s actions directly caused the risk that led to Steeb’s injuries.” The court also upheld dismissal of the municipal liability claim against the City because there was no constitutional violation. Affirmed.