The First and Eleventh Circuits, as well as the District of Columbia, have adopted the Seventh Circuit's view.

—finding no liability when state officials released a dangerous mental patient they knew had threatened a particular person, leading to her murder

Some courts have held that even where the defendants are aware of a risk of harm to a particular individual, no § 1983 claim is stated against the officials if the released prisoner caused that harm.

Indeed, some courts have questioned whether there is a distinction between special-relationship and state-created-danger liability.

—plaintiff's decedent murdered by man who had previously threatened her life and who had been hospitalized for mental evaluation as a result of her complaints

The primary thread weaving these special relationship cases together is the notion that: if the state takes a person into custody or otherwise assumes responsibility for that person's welfare, a "special relationship" may be created in respect of that person, and the fourteenth amendment imposes a concomitant duty on the state to assume some measure of responsibility …

In fact, some courts have read Martinez so restrictively as to deny victims a cause of action under § 1983 even where the defendant wis aware of the risk of harm to them.

At least two jurisdictions have refused to impose liability on psychiatrists because of statutory limitations in the commitment scheme.

Other circuits refused to apply the special relationship doctrine under all but the narrowest circumstances.

—murder by furloughed inmate could not be basis for section 1983 action against state prison officials

[PDF] it t·\939 17 APR t

[BOOK] Essential readings in health policy and law

[BOOK] Section 1983 litigation

[PDF] In the Supreme Court of the United States

[BOOK] Next time, she'll be dead: Battering and how to stop it