Does the special relationship rule articulated by this Court in DeShaney apply to shield a state actor from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the challenged conduct by that actor specifically targets an individual by name and directly puts them in danger?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED On the night of November 30, 2007, James Thomas Hurst, II was grievously injured when he was shot by a police officer of the Harrodsburg, Kentucky Police Department. The shooter, Officer Eldridge, was acting pursuant to false information that was provided by Chief Caldwell of the Burgin, Kentucky Police Department, which erroneously described threatening conduct (including intimation of a firearm) and threatening communication by Hurst to an alleged victim A. Nickles. In truth, Nickles had not even seen Hurst that night. There is significant evidence of bad blood between Caldwell and Hurst. The Kentucky courts interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as not being applicable to Caldwell’s conduct because there was no special relationship between Caldwell and Hurst at the time of the shooting and therefore Caldwell had no duty to Hurst. Additionally, the courts held that the “state created danger doctrine” derived from this Court’s holding in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), did not apply because the shooter, Eldridge, was not a private citizen but another government actor. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the special relationship rule articulated by this Court in Deshaney, supra, apply to shield a state actor from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when the challenged conduct by that actor specifically targets an individual by name and directly puts them in danger? ii 2. If the special relationship rule is applicable to state action that specifically targets a particular individual, does the state-created danger doctrine that originated from the lower federal court’s interpretation of this Court’s holding in DeShaney, supra, apply even if the increased danger is from the potential acts of other state actors instead of private actors?