
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2201                                 BETTY LORD, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                            TOWN OF LINCOLNVILLE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            David M. Glasser on brief for appellants.            ________________            Edward  R.  Benjamin,  Jr.,  Elizabeth  A.  Campbell  and   Preti,            __________________________   _______________________        ______        Flaherty, Beliveau &  Pachios, L.L.C.  on brief for  appellee Town  of        _____________________________________        Lincolnville.                                 ____________________                                    April 25, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  On October 2,  1993, Roderick Lord was                      __________            severely injured in an  automobile collision that occurred at            an  intersection within  the  geographical boundaries  of the            Town   of   Lincolnville,  Maine.      Contending  that   the            intersection  is inherently  dangerous and  that the  Town is            responsible, Lord's legal guardians  brought suit against the            Town  under 42 U.S.C.    1983.  The  district court dismissed            the  complaint  for  lack   of  jurisdiction.    This  appeal            followed.                      The sole issue on  appeal is whether a  claim under            the Due Process Clause lies in this  case.  We think not.  As            the Supreme Court  made clear  in Collins v.  City of  Harker                                              _______     _______________            Heights,  503  U.S. 115,  126-27  & n.9  (1992),  the Federal            _______            Constitution is not a guarantee  of certain minimal levels of            safety  and security.  See also  DeShaney v. Winnebago County                                   ________  ________    ________________            Dep't of Social  Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 194-97 (1989) (holding            _______________________            that  a  State's failure  to  protect  an individual  against            private violence generally does not constitute a violation of            the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on            the State  to  provide members  of  the general  public  with            adequate  protective  services).   Nor  may  the Due  Process            Clause be used to  supplant state tort law claims.   Collins,                                                                 _______            503  U.S. at 128; see also Frances-Colon v. Ramirez, 107 F.3d                              ________ _____________    _______            62, 63-64  (1st Cir. 1997) (rejecting  plaintiffs' attempt to            clothe   malpractice   claim  in   civil   rights  language).                                         -2-            Appellants'  various  attempts  to  distinguish  Collins  and                                                             _______            DeShaney fail.            ________                      First,  contrary  to   appellants'  suggestion,   a            decision whether or not to purchase and install four-way stop            signs  involves  the  allocation of  financial  resources and            requires  the  decision-maker  to  balance  competing  social            needs.    Such decisions  are  best made  by  locally elected            representatives  "rather than by  federal judges interpreting            the  basic charter  of  Government for  the entire  country."            Collins,   503  U.S.   at  128-29;   see  also   Lewellen  v.            _______                              _________   ________            Metropolitan Gov't  of Nashville  & Davidson County,  34 F.3d            ___________________________________________________            345,  351 &  n.5 (6th  Cir. 1994)  (applying Collins),  cert.                                                         _______    _____            denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995).              ______                      Second, we reject appellants' suggestion  that Lord            was in  the functional custody  of the Town  of Lincolnville.            Lord voluntarily chose to drive his car on Ducktrap Extension            Road.   Cf. Searles  v. Southeastern Penn.  Trans. Auth., 990                    ___ _______     ________________________________            F.2d 789,  792 (3d Cir.  1993) (observing that  plaintiff was            not deprived of his liberty when he voluntarily chose to ride            elevated  train).  Moreover, an individual is not deprived of            his liberty by virtue of being subject to laws.                      Finally, we do not think appellants' can rely on  a            state-created danger  theory.  Cf.  Searles, 990 F.2d  at 793                                           ___  _______            (rejecting  attempt to  distinguish  Collins where  plaintiff                                                 _______            alleged that municipal transit  authority created a danger by                                         -3-            failing to maintain  railcars in  safe operating  condition).            To the extent that  the Town can be held  responsible, Lord's            injuries resulted from  the Town's failure to  act (namely, a            failure to  remove visual impediments and a  failure to alert            drivers to the  danger).   The case simply  does not  involve            "injury directly caused by a state actor's affirmative act in            the traditional sense."  Id.                                     ___                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -4-
