M.M., a Minor, by and through her next friend and mother, Elizabeth Morris v. Timothy R. Derosha

M.M. v. Derosha · United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division · March 30, 2026 · No. 7:25-cv-00004

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denies Timothy R. Derosha’s motion to dismiss a minor’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 substantive due process claim. The claim arises from an alleged delay in permitting the minor to receive emergency medical treatment while a state trooper detained her father at gunpoint in a hospital parking lot. The court concludes at the pleading stage that the allegations plausibly establish conscience-shocking conduct and declines to apply qualified immunity on the present record.

Holdings

  1. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the alleged conduct was properly evaluated under the deliberate-indifference standard rather than the more demanding intent-to-harm standard because the alleged constitutional injury occurred after the pursuit, when Derosha allegedly had time for deliberation.
  2. M.M. plausibly alleged that Derosha acted with deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  3. The complaint plausibly alleged that Derosha violated M.M.'s constitutional right by detaining her and delaying necessary medical care despite knowledge of her serious medical emergency.
  4. The constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, so Derosha was not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether M.M.'s allegations plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim based on deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs.
  2. Whether the allegations supported applying the deliberate-indifference rather than intent-to-harm standard to the conscience-shocking inquiry.
  3. Whether Derosha was entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged conduct did not violate a constitutional right.
  4. Whether the asserted right was clearly established when Derosha allegedly detained M.M. and delayed her access to emergency medical care.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (38)

  • Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc., 851 F.3d 315, 317 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Goines v. Valley Community Services Board, 822 F.3d 159, 164, 166 (4th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Secretary of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 116 (4th Cir. 2013)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 38.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…