Marlon Marcano and Yma Su-Ling Scarbriel v. Samir Paulino, Kenneth Dale, and John Mina

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida considers summary-judgment motions arising from the investigation of Miya Marcano’s disappearance and death. The court holds that the plaintiffs abandoned claims brought by Yma Su-Ling Scarbriel, survival damages claims, and equal-protection claims. It grants summary judgment on the remaining due-process claims, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked a protected entitlement to a particular police investigation and that the defendants’ conduct did not meet the constitutional standard for a substantive due-process violation.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs could not maintain a procedural-due-process claim because they identified no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in having defendants investigate Miya's disappearance or comply with internal police policies.
2. Defendants' alleged failure to investigate Miya's disappearance and protect her from private violence did not constitute a substantive-due-process violation because the conduct was not sufficiently arbitrary or conscience shocking and no applicable custodial or other special relationship created an affirmative constitutional duty to protect her.
3. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on any individual-capacity claims because plaintiffs failed to establish a constitutional violation.
4. The official-capacity and municipal-liability claims failed because plaintiffs did not establish an underlying constitutional violation.
5. The court remanded the remaining Florida negligence claims after resolving all federal claims before trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs established a procedural due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment based on defendants' alleged failure to investigate Miya Marcano's disappearance or follow internal law-enforcement policies.
2. Whether defendants' alleged failure to investigate and protect Miya constituted a conscience-shocking substantive-due-process violation.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on any individual-capacity claims.
4. Whether official-capacity or municipal-liability claims could proceed absent an underlying constitutional violation.
5. Whether the remaining Florida negligence claims should be remanded after dismissal of all federal claims.

Disposition

remanded