# Pinder v. Johnson > Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1995 · 54 F.3d 1169 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6934798 ## Case - **Full name:** Carol L. PINDER, Individually and in her capacity as surviving Mother of her minor children, deceased and as Personal Representative of the Estates of Kim Pinder, LaToya and Troy Brummel v. Donald JOHNSON, PFC, Individually and in his official capacity, and Commissioner of Cambridge, in the City of Cambridge - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - **Decided:** May 30, 1995 - **Citations:** 54 F.3d 1169; 1995 WL 320571 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Widener - **Judges:** Ervin, Hall, Hamilton, Luttig, Michael, Motz, Murnaghan, Niemeyer, Russell, Widener, Wilkins, Wilkinson, Williams - **Cited by:** 179 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6934798 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding no liability under the state-created danger doctrine for the officer's conduct reassuring the plaintiff of her safety and charging the former boyfriend on lesser charges than he'd promised after having responded to a domestic disturbance call and hearing the plaintiff … - stating that state actors do not “‘commit[] an affirmative act’ or ‘create[] a danger’ every time [they] do[] anything that makes injury at the hands of a third party more likely,” and that instead, would-be plaintiffs must come forward with evidence of an act “more akin to a[… - concluding that an officer’s assurances to the victim and his decision not to charge the assailant were not affirmative acts giving rise to civil liability because, if so, “every representation by the police and every failure to incarcerate would constitute ‘affirmative action… - recognizing that the state’s affirmative duty to protect arises “when the state restrains persons from acting on their own behalf,” and noting that “[s]ome sort of confinement of the injured party— incarceration, institutionalization, or the like — is needed to trigger the aff… - holding that a police officer’s failure to uphold a promise to incarcerate a man posing a danger to- a woman and her children did not constitute affirmative misconduct by a state actor under the state- created danger doctrine ## Opinion text WIDENER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part: I concur in the result and in all of the opinion except those three sentences commencing with the word “These,” and ending with the word “party,” on page 1177, with which statement I do not agree. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6934798. Public record. Not legal advice.