Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER BABCOCK, Chief Judge. Defendants The Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County (the Board), The Sheriffs Department of Jefferson County (Sheriffs Department), Sheriff John Stone, Deputy Sheriff Neil Gardner, Deputy Sheriff Paul Magor, Deputy Sheriff Paul Smoker, Deputy Sheriff Scott Taborsky, Deputy Sheriff Rick Searle, and Deputy Sheriff Kevin Walker (collectively, Deputy Sheriff Defendants) move, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss all claims brought by Plaintiffs Mark A. Schnurr, Sharilyn K. Schnurr, Valeen M. Schnurr, Ashley L. Schnurr, Samantha G. Schnurr, Dale C. Todd, Jana M. Todd, Evan M. Todd, Brian W. Todd, Adam C. Todd, Carl J. Todd, Andrew M. Park, Michelle H. Park, Jeanna A. Park, and Kathy H. Park. After consideration of the motion, briefs, arguments of counsel, and for the following reasons, I grant the motion. I. Facts The following facts are alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. (Complaint). On April 20, 1999, Plaintiffs Valeen M. Schnurr, Evan M. Todd, and Jeanna Park were shot and seriously wounded in Columbine High School’s library (Library) by fellow students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. See C/O ¶¶ 56, 57. Kathy Park, Jeanna Park’s sister, was also in the Library and witnessed her sister being shot and wounded and other students being wounded and killed. Id. at ¶ 57. The wounded Plaintiffs and Kathy Parks will be referred to, collectively, as the Library Plaintiffs. The following events led up to these shootings. On the morning of April 20, 1999, Columbine High School Dean Peter Horvath called School Resource Officer Defendant Deputy Sheriff Gardner for his assistance, informing him that there had been a shooting. C/O ¶ 16. Deputy Gardner responded by driving his patrol car to the “senior parking lot,” located just south and west of the Library, and parked. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 21. The Library is located on the upper level, directly above the school cafeteria. Id. Because the school is located on sloping terrain, the Library’s exterior entrance is at ground level even though the Library itself is on the upper level. Id. Upon his arrival, Deputy Gardner saw several wounded students lying on the ground outside the school. Plaintiffs allege that based on his experience as the School Resource Officer, Deputy Gardner was aware that the Library would be filled with students at that time, approximately 11:18 a.m., which corresponded with one of the school’s lunch periods. Id. at ¶ 23. From his vantage point, Deputy Gardner observed that the Library’s exterior entrance door was open. Id. Almost immediately, Deputy Gardner saw either Harris or Klebold, likely Kle-bold, near the school’s west entrance, approximately thirty (30) feet east of the Library’s exterior entrance door. Id. at ¶¶ 24, 20. Deputy Gardner saw that Kle-bold was holding a dark-colored long rifle. Id. at ¶ 24. Klebold fired several shots at Deputy Gardner who then took cover behind his patrol car. When the deputy looked again, Klebold had entered the school. Id. Shortly after Deputy Gardner’s arrival at Columbine, Deputy Smoker and Deputy Taborsky arrived and parked their patrol car in the vicinity of Deputy Gardner’s car. C/O ¶ 26. Upon their arrival, Deputy Smoker and Deputy Taborsky saw wounded students on the grass and on the sidewalk leading towards Columbine’s west entrance. Id. These deputies also noticed that the exterior entrance to the Library was open. Id. Deputies Gardner, Smoker, and Tabor-sky heard gunshots and explosions inside the school. C/O ¶ 27. Students running out of school told Deputies Smoker and Taborsky that two gunmen were shooting students. Id. None of the students reported that Harris and Klebold had taken or were threatening to take hostages. Id. Deputy Smoker relayed the students’ reports to Deputy Gardner who was nearby. Id. Deputy Sheriffs Magor, Searle, and Walker then arrived at the senior parking lot where they learned what the other deputies had seen. C/O ¶28. They saw the wounded students on the ground, saw students fleeing from the school, and heard automatic gunfire coming from inside Columbine. Id. Allegedly, based on their own observations and the reports they received from Dean Horvath and the fleeing students, the six Deputy Sheriff Defendants knew they were confronting a “high-risk” situation rather than a hostage situation as defined by the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department’s Manual. C/O ¶ 29. These Deputy Sheriff Defendants were in contact with the Sheriffs Department, Sheriff Stone, and other deputy sheriffs and employees immediately upon their arrival at the senior parking lot. C/O ¶ 30. The Sheriffs Department also began receiving emergency telephone messages routed through its communications center 911 operator. Id. In response, the Sheriffs Department cleared its main communications channel and all other radio traffic was routed to secondary radio channels. Id. at ¶ 31. This permitted Sheriff Stone and others in command, including Deputy Gardner, to communicate directly with the deputies at an en route to the school to monitor and receive information about the 911 telephone calls being received. Id. The Sheriffs Department put out a statewide callover the state law enforcement Colorado Law Enforcement Emergency Response Network (CLEER) channel to other law enforcement jurisdictions for “mutual aid.” C/O ¶ 32. Minutes after the Deputy Sheriff Defendants arrived at Columbine, a four-member Denver special weapons and attack (SWAT) team also arrived. C/O ¶ 33. These officers, trained to handle high-risk situations, allegedly were prepared and willing to use their special weapons and tactics in response to the Columbine attack. See id. As the Denver SWAT team pulled into sight of Columbine’s west entrance and the Library’s exterior entrance, they saw Harris or Klebold, likely Harris, pointing a long-barrel weapon out of the west entrance doors. Harris fired a number of rounds. Three of the SWAT team members returned fire, each getting off several rounds. C/O ¶ 38. Following this exchange, Harris withdrew into the school. Id. The three SWAT team members advanced toward the school in the direction of the Library’s exterior entrance and the school’s west entrance. Id. at ¶ 40. The Denver SWAT team did not, however, enter Columbine High School due to the following actions of the Deputy Sheriff Defendants. Id. The Deputy Sheriff Defendants enforced Sheriff Stone’s order and/or the Board’s and the Sheriff Department’s custom, policy or practice calling for the establishment of a secure perimeter after classifying the Columbine attach as a high-risk situation. See C/O ¶ 43. A “secure perimeter” is intended to prevent anyone from entering the scene and to prevent the perpetrators of the high-risk situation from escaping. Id. Allegedly, consistent with this order to secure the perimeter of Columbine High School, the Deputy Sheriff Defendants “issued orders that they would not permit law enforcement officers, whether affiliated with the Sheriffs Department, or like the Denver SWAT team, affiliated with separate law enforcement agencies], to enter the school to attempt a rescue.” C/O ¶ 44. The two shooters, Harris and Klebold, demonstrated no intention other than to remain in the high school and injure or kill as many students and teachers as possible. See id. As a result, and as part of the decision not to attempt a rescue themselves and to prevent anyone else from attempting a rescue, the Deputy Sheriffs ordered the Denver SWAT team to halt its advance towards the high school and to cease any other rescue efforts. C/O ¶ 45. In the meantime, after entering the school building, Harris and Klebold fired upon and wounded students and teachers. Among those wounded near the school’s west entrance was teacher Patti Nielson. C/O ¶ 47. After being wounded by gunfire Ms. Nielson fled down a hallway to the Library where a number of students, including the Library Plaintiffs, were studying. Immediately upon entering the Library, Ms. Nielson yelled at the students that there was a “kid with a gun” and to get down. C/O ¶ 48. She then telephoned the 911 operator at the Sheriffs Department. Ms. Nielson informed the 911 operator that: 1) she had been “hit;” 2) a student who had been standing beside her when she first saw Harris and Klebold also had been “hit;” 3) she was in the Library; and 4) Harris and Klebold were in the hallway outside the Library. Id. The 911 operator could hear Harris’ and Klebold’s gunfire over the telephone. Ms. Nielson informed the 911 operator several times that the gunshots she and the operator were hearing were in the hallway just outside the library door. Id. The 911 operator then routed the information received from Ms. Nielson to the Deputy Sheriffs on scene and to Sheriff Stone. C/O ¶ 49. According to Plaintiffs, there was “ample time to safely evacuate the students from the Library, or for the students to safely evacuate themselves, before Harris and Klebold entered the Library.” C/O ¶ 50. It is alleged further that the Deputy Sheriff Defendants could see that the Library’s exterior entrance was open and knew that the students could “safely escape” from the library through this entrance, “probably in less than one minute.” Id. Sheriff Stone and the Deputy Sheriff Defendants did not order or effectuate an evacuation. C/O ¶ 51. Instead, the Deputy Sheriff Defendants remained outside while the 911 operator, based on her training and/or responding to the direction of Sheriff Stone and the Sheriffs Deputies assured Ms. Nielson that help was on the way: “We have paramedics, we have fire, we have police en route, okay?” Id. The 911 operator also instructed Ms. Nielson to “keep everyone low to the floor.” Id. Ms. Nielson passed on this instruction to the students in the Library. Id. Allegedly, the Library Plaintiffs understood that Ms. Nielson was conveying the Sheriffs Department’s instructions concerning the best way to protect themselves from danger. C/O ¶ 53. According to the Complaint, these Plaintiffs also understood the instructions to mean that if they stayed in the Library, law enforcement officers would soon arrive and rescue them. Id. The Library Plaintiffs allege that in reliance on the Sheriffs Department’s instructions, they remained in the Library. As a result, the Library Plaintiffs “made no effort to protect themselves, in particular by using the readily accessible escape route from the library to the outside.” Id. At some point, Harris and Klebold entered the Library. The 911 operator heard Harris’ and Klebold’s voices and gunfire through the telephone handset which Ms. Nielson had placed on a table. C/O ¶ 55. Harris or Klebold fired a shot wounding Plaintiff Evan Todd. Id. at ¶ 56. Harris and Klebold then fired upon other students, killing some and wounding others, including Plaintiffs Jeanna Park and Valeen Schnurr. Id. at ¶¶ 56-57. Plaintiff Kathy Park saw her sister Jeanna being shot and witnessed other students being wounded and killed. Id. at ¶ 57. The Deputy Sheriff Defendants never provided the assistance promised by the 911 operator, C/O ¶ 54, or made any effort to rescue the students. Id. at ¶ 58. Rather, they maintained their “secure perimeter” response by continuing to prevent the Denver SWAT team and other potential rescuers from entering the school building. Id. at ¶¶ 54, 58. Eventually, Harris and Klebold left the Library. Within a minute or two of their departure, those students able to walk made their way out of the Library through the exterior entrance. C/O ¶ 59. Valeen Schnurr, who was seriously wounded and bleeding heavily, was assisted to the car of an unknown deputy sheriff. C/O ¶ 60. It is alleged that this deputy sheriff told her to wait for the next car. Id. Schoolmates then assisted her into a second unknown deputy sheriffs car. The second deputy sheriff then took Ms. Schnurr to a third unknown deputy sheriffs car. Id. The third deputy sheriff handed Ms. Schnurr over to civilians driving a golf cart. Id. These persons transported Ms. Schnurr to a vehicle operated by a police officer. Id. This police officer recognized the seriousness of her condition and provided first aid until an ambulance arrived. Id. Ms. Schnurr lost a great deal of blood during the thirty (30) to forty-five (45) minutes she was required to wait for care. Id. Upon arrival at the hospital, medical personnel and attendants were unsure she would survive. Id. Jeanna Park was the last student to escape from the school library. C/O ¶ 61. Kathy Park assisted Jeanna Park to a deputy sheriffs car, behind which the sisters hid. Id. Thereafter, an unknown deputy sheriff took them to another area without administering first aid. Jeanna Park, the last of the wounded taken to a hospital, received no medical assistance from the Sheriffs Department during the time she waited for an ambulance. Id. II. Claims Plaintiffs bring the following claims based on the foregoing allegations: Claim One Deprivation of Constitutional Right to Life, Liberty and Personal Security under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — “State-Created and State-Enhanced Danger” — All Plaintiffs against the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, all Deputy Sheriffs in their individual capacities, and against Sheriff John Stone, in his official capacity. Claim Two Deprivation of Constitutional Right to Life, Liberty and Personal Security under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — “Special Relationship — All Plaintiffs against the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, all Deputy Sheriffs in their individual capacities, and against Sheriff John Stone, in his official capacity.” Claim Three Failure to Provide Medical Assistance under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Schnurr and Park Plaintiffs against the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, Unknown Deputy Sheriffs, in their individual capacity, and Sheriff Stone, in his official capacity. Claim Four Willful and Wanton Conduct — All Plaintiffs against Deputy Sheriffs and Sheriff Stone, in their individual capacity. Claim Five Outrageous Conduct — All Plaintiffs against Deputy Sheriffs and Sheriff Stone, in their individual capacity. Plaintiffs do not plead separate claims for relief against the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, (collectively, Municipal Defendants) and Sheriff Stone, in his official capacity. Rather, in Claims One, Two, and Three, the Plaintiffs allege that the Deputy Sheriff Defendants’ actions were taken pursuant to policies or customs of the Municipal Defendants. See C/O ¶¶ 70, 78, and 85. For clarity of analysis, I analyze separately the claims brought against the Deputy Sheriff Defendants and the claims asserted against the Municipal Defendants and Sheriff Stone, in his official capacity as a policymaker for the Sheriffs Department. All Defendants move, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the federal claims for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Further, the Deputy Sheriff Defendants, accepting as true Plaintiffs’ well pleaded facts, assert entitlement to qualified immunity from suit as to the § 1983 claims. They also seek dismissal of Claim Four as barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-10-101, et seq. III. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) Under Rule 12(b)(6), I may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). If the plaintiff has pleaded facts that would support a legally cognizable claim for relief, a motion to dismiss should be denied. Id. I accept “as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, and view those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” See Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc., 144 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir.1998). All reasonable inferences must be construed in the plaintiffs favor. See Dill v. City of Edmond, 155 F.3d 1193, 1201 (10th Cir.1998). Id. A plaintiffs con-clusory allegations need not be accepted as true. Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste Mgmt., 161 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir.1998). IV. Qualified Immunity The Deputy Sheriff Defendants maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity from the first, second, and third claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the contours of the pertinent law were not clearly established on April 20,1999. The basic principles of qualified immunity are well settled. The purpose of a qualified immunity defense under § 1983 is to limit the deleterious effects that the risks of civil liability would otherwise have on government operations at all levels, federal, state, and local. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Discretionary decisions by government actors inevitably impact the lives of private individuals, sometimes with harmful effects. Moreover, such decisions are inescapably imperfect. Especially in the context of police work, decisions must be made in an atmosphere of great uncertainty. Holding police officers liable in hindsight for every injurious consequence of their actions would paralyze the functions of law enforcement. See Tangwall v. Stuckey, 135 F.3d 510, 520 (7th Cir.1998); Torchinsky v. Siwinski, 942 F.2d 257, 260 (4th Cir.1991). Qualified immunity thus allows officials the freedom to exercise fair judgment, protecting “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). Qualified immunity under § 1983 shields officials from civil liability unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). The linchpin of qualified immunity is objective reasonableness. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034. So long as the officer’s actions, viewed from the perspective of the officer at the time, can be seen to be within the range of reasonableness, then no liability will attach. See id. “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id. at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034. (emphasis added). Important to this reasonableness inquiry is whether the rights alleged to have been violated were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727. If the law supporting the allegedly violated rights was not clearly established, then immunity must lie. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034; Tarantino v. Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach. The purpose of this doctrine is to ensure that police officers and other government actors have notice of the extent of constitutional restrictions on their behavior. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 195, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984). Thus, qualified immunity prevents officials from being blindsided. In a § 1983 suit for an alleged violation of a constitutional right, the requisites of a qualified immunity defense must be considered in proper sequence. Where the defendant seeks qualified immunity, a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of tidal are avoided where the defense is dispositive. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 199-201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 2155-56 (2001). Qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). The privilege is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Id. As a result, the Supreme Court has stressed “the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227, 112 S.Ct. 534, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991). In Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231-33, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991), the Supreme Court clarified the appropriate framework for reviewing qualified immunity from § 1983 substantive due process claims. Under Siegert, I must first determine whether Plaintiff “has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.” See id. at 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789. If Plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right, then I determine whether that right was clearly established so that reasonable officials in Defendants’ situation would have understood their conduct violated that right. See Liebson v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 73 F.3d 274, 276 (10th Cir.1996); Martinez v. Mafchir, 35 F.3d 1486, 1490 (10th Cir.1994). Following the Siegert framework, I must first decide whether Plaintiffs have properly asserted the violation of constitutional rights in Claims One, Two, and Three. V. Substantive Due Process42 U.S.C. § 1983 Jurisprudence A. Fourteenth Amendment — Due Process Clause The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly guarantees to each citizen that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of appropriate procedural process, not implicated in this case, before a state can act to deprive an individual of his or her life, liberty, or property. The Fourteenth Amendment also contains a judicially recognized substantive due process component that protects an individual’s life, liberty and property against “certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986). B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 The vehicle through which a violation of substantive due process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is remedied is 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This section, enacted in its original form in 1871, was specifically designed to provide a method for redress of violations of the rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment by state actors. As described by the United States Supreme Court, § 1983 developed in the following manner: As a result of the new structure of law that emerged in the post-Civil War era — and especially of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was its centerpiece — the role of the Federal Government as guarantor of basic federal rights against state power was clearly established.... Section 1983 opened the federal courts to private citizens, offering a uniquely federal remedy against incursions under the claimed authority of state law upon rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the Nation. ^ tfc ‡ % ifc The very purpose of § 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s federal rights — to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, “whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.” Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 238-40, 242, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972). While implemented to provide a method of redress for the deprivation of life, liberty or property by state action, neither § 1983 nor the Fourteenth Amendment transform mere tortious acts into constitutional violations. Daniels, 474 U.S. at 332, 106 S.Ct. 662. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens from the arbitrary, abusive, or oppressive use of governmental power. Id. This basic principle of due process jurisprudence dictates that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer an “affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.” DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989). C. DeShaney Decision In DeShaney, the Supreme Court announced the now firmly entrenched rule that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose a constitutional duty upon a state to protect individuals from private violence. See id. at 195-97, 109 S.Ct. 998. In DeShaney, the Winnebago County Department of Social Services (the County) received numerous reports that Joshua, a small child, was being abused by his father. Id. at 192-93, 109 S.Ct. 998. Joshua, temporarily removed from his father’s custody, was soon returned to his father’s care. Id. The County continued to receive reports that Joshua was being abused but failed to act. Id. Eventually, Joshua’s father beat him so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage. Id. Joshua and his mother sued the County and several of its employees, alleging that the County had violated the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to intervene on his behalf and protect him from his father’s abuse. Id. The DeShaney Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the County acquired an affirmative obligation to protect Joshua from his father’s abuse based on the fact that the County was aware of the alleged abuse. Id. at 195, 109 S.Ct. 998. Relying on the premise that the purpose of the Due Process Clause is “to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protects them from each other,” the Court held that: [Njothing in the ... Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law,” but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.... Consistent with these principles, ... the Due Process Clause[ ] generally confer[s] no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty or property interests of which the government may not deprive the individual. Id. at 195-96,109 S.Ct. 998. The principle that there is no constitutional right to police protection is derived from well settled jurisprudence addressing the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statutory provision providing a remedy for violations of the Constitution. The Tenth Circuit has gleaned two exceptions to DeShaney’s general rule that a state is not constitutionally obligated to protect individuals against private violence: 1) the special-relationship doctrine, and 2) the state-created or enhanced danger doctrine. See Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567, 572 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1118, 116 S.Ct. 924, 133 L.Ed.2d 853 (1996). 1. Special Relationship Doctrine The special-relationship doctrine stems directly from DeShaney itself, and applies in situations where the state imposes limitations upon an individual's freedom to act on his or her own behalf: [I]t is the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf — through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty — which is the ‘deprivation of liberty’ triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200, 109 S.Ct. 998 (emphasis added); see also City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983) (duty to provide medical care to injured suspects in police custody); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (duty to protect involuntarily committed mental patients from harm by themselves and others). In the years following DeShaney, courts have struggled with the question of what restraint “similar” to incarceration or institutionalization is sufficient to give rise to a state’s duty to protect. The Tenth Circuit has held that a plaintiff must show involuntary restraint by a government official in order to establish a duty to protect under the special relationship theory. See Liebson, 73 F.3d at 276 (librarian who was sexually assaulted while employed in a prison failed to show existence of special relationship because employment was voluntary). In Graham v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 1-89, 22 F.3d 991, 994-95 (10th Cir.1994), the Tenth Circuit held that schools have no duty under the Due Process Clause to protect students from assaults by other students, even when the school knew or should have known of the danger presented. If the state takes a person into custody or holds him against his will the state assumes some measure of a constitutionally mandated duty of protection. Id. at 994. Compulsory attendance laws for public schools, however, do not create an affirmative constitutional duty to protect students from the private actions of third parties while they attend school. Id.,citing Maldonado v. Josey, 975 F.2d 727, 732 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 914, 113 S.Ct. 1266, 122 L.Ed.2d 662 (1993). Inaction by the state in the face of a known danger is not enough to trigger a constitutional duty to protect unless the state has a custodial or other “special relationship” with the victim. See Graham, 22 F.3d at 995. “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament ... but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.” DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200, 109 S.Ct. 998; Seamons v. Snow, 84 F.3d 1226, 1235-36 (10th Cir.1996), reversed in part on other grounds, 206 F.3d 1021 (10th Cir.2000). Moreover, a defendant’s knowledge of the risk of harm is not relevant to the determination of whether a special relationship existed. See Graham, 22 F.3d at 994 (“foreseeability cannot create an affirmative duty to protect” under the special relationship doctrine “when plaintiff remains unable to allege a custodial relationship”). Indeed, inaction by the state in the face of a known danger will not trigger the constitutional duty to protect. Id. at 995 citing Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1122, 1125 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 947, 114 S.Ct. 389, 126 L.Ed.2d 337 (1993). 2. State-Created or Enhanced Danger Doctrine In its reasoning, the DeShaney Court also planted the seed for the second exception to the general rule that the state has no duty to protect citizens from private violence known as the state-created or enhanced danger doctrine: While the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 201, 109 S.Ct. 998 (emphasis added). Courts have also grappled with the question of what state conduct “creates or enhances” danger sufficient to establish a duty to protect. In Medina v. City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir.1992), the Tenth Circuit explained that police officers who engaged in a high speed car chase that resulted in injuries to a bicyclist could be liable for creating a special danger faced by the bicyclist. Id. at 1495-99. The Tenth Circuit also addressed directly the state-created or enhanced danger doctrine in Graham, 22 F.3d at 994, concerning acts of violence at two schools. At one school, a student was shot and killed by another student. At the other school, a student was stabbed by a fellow student. The students’ parents brought separate § 1983 actions against their respective School Districts which were consolidated on appeal. The Graham Court noted that “DeSha-ney ... le[ft] the door open for liability in situations where the state creates a dangerous situation or renders citizens more vulnerable to danger,” citing Reed, 986 F.2d at 1126 and Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94, 99 (2nd Cir.1993). Citing L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2442, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1993), the Court stated that “[this state-created danger] doctrine necessarily involves affirmative conduct on the part of the state in placing the plaintiff in danger.” Gmham at 995. Based in part on the plaintiffs’ failure to point to any affirmative actions by defendants that created or increased the danger to the victims, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaints. The contours of this doctrine were further explored in Uhlrig, 64 F.3d 567 in which the husband of a therapist killed by a mental hospital patient filed a § 1983 action asserting that the state’s decision to terminate a special unit created the danger that led to his wife’s death. The Uhlrig Court articulated a five-part test to determine whether a defendant created or enhanced the danger for the plaintiff: 1) whether plaintiff was a member of a limited and specifically definable group; 2) whether defendant’s conduct put plaintiff at substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm; 3) whether the risk to plaintiff was obvious or known; 4) whether defendant acted recklessly in conscious disregard of that risk; and 5) if such conduct, when viewed in total, “shocks the conscience” of federal judges. Id. To bring the Uhlrig test in line with DeShaney, the Tenth Circuit later held in Armijo v. Wagon Mound Public Schools, 159 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir.1998) that “in addition to meeting Uhlrig’s five-part test, a plaintiff must also show that the charged state entity and the charged individual defendant actors created the danger or increased the danger in some way.” Id. at 1263; accord Sutton v. Utah State School for the Deaf and Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1238 (10th Cir.1999) (noting that danger-creation theory “necessarily involves affirmative conduct on the part of the state in placing the plaintiff in danger”). If, however, a plaintiff is unable to meet the five Uhlrig requirements, a court need not reach the question of the state’s role in causing or enhancing the danger to the plaintiff. Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1263, fn. 6. I address Plaintiffs’ claims in light of these controlling legal principles. VI. Claims Analysis A. Section 1983 Claims against the Deputy Sheriff Defendants 1. Claim One — 42 U.S.C. § 1983-De-privation of Constitutional Right to Life, Liberty and Personal Security under 42 U.S.C. § 1983— “State-Created and State-Enhanced Danger” — All Plaintiffs against all Deputy Sheriffs in their individual capacities The Deputy Sheriff Defendants move to dismiss Claim One in which Plaintiffs assert a substantive due process violation based on alleged improper responses to the Columbine attack and lack of rescue efforts by these Defendants. For the following reasons, I grant the motion. Plaintiffs allege the following alleged improper responses to the Columbine attack and lack of rescue efforts by the Deputy Sheriff Defendants: ¶ 43. Upon information and belief, the Deputy Sheriffs ... determined that they would not attempt to evacuate anyone from the school, including the students in the library, that they would not pursue Harris and Klebold or to attempt a rescue.... [T]he Deputy Sheriffs, upon information and belief, decided to enforce [Sheriff] Stone’s order ... which called for deputy sheriffs encountering a “high-risk” situation to merely establish a “secure perimeter” around the area under attack. The “secure perimeter” is intended to prevent anyone from entering the school and to prevent the perpetrators of the “high-risk” situation from escaping. ¶ 44. Consistent with their decision, the Deputy Sheriffs, upon information and belief, issued orders that they would permit no law enforcement officers, whether affiliated with the Sheriffs Department or, like the Denver SWAT team, affiliated with a separate law enforcement agency, to enter the school to attempt a rescue. At the same time, they decided to attempt no rescue themselves .... ¶ 45. As a result of, and as part of the decision not to attempt a rescue themselves and to prevent anyone else from attempting to rescue, upon information and belief, the Deputy Sheriffs ordered the Denver SWAT team to halt its advance towards the school and to cease any other rescue efforts. ¶ 48. Ms. Nielson, [a wounded teacher], fled down a hallway to the library, where a number of students, including Valeen Schnurr, Evan Todd, Jeanna A. Park and Kathy Park, were studying. Immediately upon entering the library, Ms. Nielson yelled at the students that there was a “kid with a gun” and to get down. She then telephoned the 911 operator at the Sheriffs Department. Ms. Nielson told the 911 operator that she had been “hit,” that a student who had been standing beside her when she first saw Harris and Klebold also had been “hit,” that she was in the library and that Harris and Klebold were in the hallway outside the library. The 911 operator could hear Harris’ and Kle-bold’s gunfire over the telephone line. Ms. Nielson informed the 911 operator several times that the gunshots she and the 911 operator were hearing were in the hallway just outside the library door. ¶ 49. Upon information and belief, the 911 operator routed Ms. Nielson’s information and cry for help to the Deputy Sheriffs on the scene and to [Sheriff] Stone.... ¶ 51. Nonetheless, the Deputy Sheriffs and [Sheriff] Stone did not order or effectuate an evacuation, [despite knowing that the library’s exterior entrance was open]. See C/O ¶ 50. Instead, the Deputy Sheriffs remained outside the library while the 911 operator, based on her training and/or responding to the direction of [Sheriff] Stone or the Deputy Sheriffs, assured Ms. Nielson that help was on the way: ‘We have paramedics, we have fire, we have police en route, okay?” The 911 operator also instructed Ms. Nielson “to keep the students in the library and to have them lie on the floor” “Keep everyone low to the floor,” the 911 operator instructed Ms. Nielson. Ms. Nielson passed on these instructions to the students in the library. ¶ 53.... As a result, plaintiffs made no effort to protect themselves, in particular, plaintiffs did not avail themselves of the readily accessible escape route from the library to the outside where the Denver SWAT team was available to provide cover for, and assist them in, their escape. ¶ 54. Even after the Deputy Sheriffs learned from the 911 operator that Harris and Klebold were outside the library, and even though the Deputy Sheriffs knew that the 911 operator — in accordance with standard operating procedure and/or pursuant to their or [Sheriff] Stone’s directions — was instructing the students to remain in the library because help was on the way, the Deputy Sheriffs maintained their “secure perimeter” response. The Deputy Sheriffs never provided the assistance promised by the 911 operator. Upon information and belief, the Deputy Sheriffs continued to prevent the Denver SWAT team and any other potential rescuers from entering the school.... The Deputy Sheriffs placed plaintiffs in a position where plaintiffs could not help themselves and, concurrently, plaintiffs were denied the help of others. Second Amended Complaint, passim. In moving to dismiss Claim One, the Deputy Sheriff Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to allege circumstances or conduct meeting the second, fourth, and fifth elements of the Uhlrig test. See Opening Brief, p. 23. Footnote 37, however, casts doubt on whether the Deputy Sheriff Defendants are conceding the first and third element. Out of an abundance of caution, I examine each Uhlrig element. a. Uhlrig Test — First Element — Limited and Specifically Definable Group Plaintiffs allege that the Deputy Sheriff Defendants knew that there were a number of Columbine students in the Library along with a teacher, Ms. Nielson. See ¶¶ 27, 49. This information defines a limited and specific group' — Columbine High School students and one teacher in the school library versus those Columbine students and teachers not in the Library. Thus, this element has been met. b. Uhlrig Test-Second Element— Substantial Risk of Serious, Immediate and Proximate Harm Relying on Armijo and Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir.1999), the individual Sheriff Defendants contend that it was Harris’ and Klebold’s conduct rather than their own that put the Library Plaintiffs at risk of serious, immediate and proximate harm. See Opening Brief, pp. 23-24. Pursuant to Ai-mijo and Sutton, Plaintiffs must allege that the Deputy Sheriff Defendants affirmatively placed the Library Plaintiffs in the path of substantial risk of serious, immediate and proximate harm. In Armijo, the parents brought suit against a school and several individually named school employees when, after being suspended and driven home without parental notification, their son Philadelphio committed suicide. Plaintiffs’ son, a special education student, repeatedly had expressed suicidal thoughts and at least one of the individual defendants knew that Phi-ladelphio had access to firearms at his home. The suicide was immediately preceded by the decision of the principal, Mary Schütz, and school counselor, Tom Herrera, to suspend Philadelphio. Contrary to stated school policy, without contacting Philadelphio’s parents, and despite his known suicidal ideation and access to firearms, Ms. Schütz directed Mr. Herrera to remove Philadelphio from the school grounds and drive him home, even though they both knew Philadelphio’s parents were not home. Philadelphio shot himself at home after Mr. Herrera dropped him off and before his parents returned home. See Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1256-1257. In affirming denial of summary judgment as to two defendants, the Armijo court emphasized that the defendants must have actually placed the Plaintiff in harms way, stating that: [t]he key to the state-created danger cases ... lies in the state actors’ culpable knowledge and conduct in affirmatively placing an individual in a position of danger, effectively stripping a person of her ability to defend herself, or cutting off potential sources of private aid. Thus the environment created by the state actors must be dangerous; they must know it is dangerous; and to be liable, they must have used their authority to create an opportunity that would not otherwise have existed for the third party’s [acts] to occur. Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1263. Furthermore, according to Armijo, “if the danger to the plaintiff existed prior to the state’s intervention, then even if the state put the plaintiff back in that same danger, the state would not be liable because it could not have created a danger that already existed.” Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1263. In Sutton, the victim, James Sutton, who suffered from severe cerebral palsy, mental retardation, total blindness and the inability to speak, communicated to his mother that he was being inappropriately touched by another boy at school. James’ mother complained to the school, which took no action other than to promise to constantly supervise James in the bathroom. On an occasion when James was using the bathroom, a teacher’s aide abandoned her monitoring post to answer a telephone. When she returned, she found James being molested by another student. Sutton, 173 F.3d at 1230-1231. In affirming dismissal of the complaint against the defendant teacher, the Court stated that “Moore [the teacher] himself did not personally, affirmatively place James in any danger.” Sutton, 173 F.3d at 1239. The Court then compared Moore’s actions to the teacher aide’s actions, who was not a named defendant, stating that it was the teacher’s aide who “affirmatively placed James in danger by leaving him to answer the phone,” thus, rendering James vulnerable to the attack. Id. In Sutton, the Court affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs “danger creation” claim because the named defendant did not personally affirmatively act to créate or enhance the danger to the victim. See id. at 1239. Here, the Sheriff Defendants are alleged to have issued multiple orders refusing to permit any access to or rescue of the Library Plaintiffs. See e.g., C/O ¶¶ 43-45, 51, 54. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Sheriff Defendants, through communications with the 911 operator, told the persons in the library to stay down and assured them that help was on the way. C/O ¶¶ 61, 53. Plaintiffs allege that based on these assurances the Library Plaintiffs did not leave the Library by the open exterior entrance, a readily accessible escape route. Id. at 53. Simultaneously, the Députy Sheriff Defendants cut off all avenues of outside aid by refusing to permit the SWAT team to attempt to rescue those in the Library. Consequently, the Library Plaintiffs contend they lost their window of opportunity to escape from the Library. The Deputy Sheriff Defendants rely on the Armijo Court’s holding that “if the danger to the plaintiff existed prior to the state’s intervention, then even if the state put the plaintiff back in that same danger, the state would not be liable because it could not have created a danger that already existed.” See Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1263. In Armijo, however, the injuries to the victim were self-inflicted and did not involve the acts of a third-party. Based on these circumstances the Armijo Court addressed liability only under the danger creation theory, not, as in this case, the danger enhancement theory. See Dwares, 985 F.2d at 99. (Plaintiffs alleged that defendant officers advised skinheads that they could assault demonstrators without police interference. Under these circumstances, “defendant officers indeed had made the demonstrators more vulnerable to assaults.”). Therefore, Armijo is arguably distinguishable because it did not address the specific theory of “danger enhancement.” Finder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169 (4th Cir.1995), a decision upon which the Deputy Sheriff Defendants rely strongly, is also distinguishable. According to the Pinder majority, unlike in this case, Pinder’s case was based purely on the defendant’s failure to provide adequate protection from the danger created by another. Thus, the Court characterized Pin-der’s case as purely an “omission claim.” In contrast, Claim One is based not only on the Deputy Sheriff Defendants’ failures to act but also on their affirmatively instructing the Library Plaintiffs to stay down and assuring them that help was on the way. Under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiffs allegations can be construed fairly to meet the second element of the Uhlrig test that the individual Sheriff Defendants’ affirmative actions on April 20, 1999 enhanced the danger that the Library Plaintiffs would be attacked by Harris and Klebold. c. Uhlrig Test-Third Element-Risk was Obvious or Known Plaintiffs clearly allege the known and obvious danger that Harris and Klebold would attack the persons in the Library. Thus, Plaintiffs have met the requirements of the third Uhlrig factor. d. Uhlrig Test-Fourth Element-Reckless Actions in Conscious Disregard of the Risk The Deputy Sheriff Defendants contend that they did not act recklessly in conscious disregard of the risk that the Library Plaintiffs would be attacked by Harris and Klebold. In support, these Defendants point to their efforts to secure the perimeter around Columbine High School, the immediate response of SWAT officers, and the 911 operator’s communications. For a claim of recklessness to be cognizable under § 1983, the state actor must manifest either “1) an intent to harm; or 2) an intent to place a person unreasonably at risk of harm.” Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 573. The Due Process clause does not protect citizens “against incorrect or ill-advised [government] decisions.” Seamons, 84 F.3d at 1236 quoting Collins, 503 U.S. at 120, 112 S.Ct. 1061. The first type of recklessness conforms to the outlines of traditional intentional torts, while the second is defined as “when a state actor ‘was aware of a known or obvious risk that was so great that it was highly probable that serious harm would follow and he or she proceeded in conscious and unreasonable disregard of the consequences.’ ” Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 574 quoting Medina v. City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir.1992) (emphasis added). Based on the exigent circumstances facing the Deputy Sheriff Defendants, I conclude that Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that the Deputy Sheriff Defendants acted recklessly in conscious disregard of the risk that the Library Plaintiffs would be attacked by Harris and Klebold. Pursuant to Uhlrig, there are no factual allegations supporting the inference that these Defendants harbored an intent to harm the Library Plaintiffs. See id. at 574. Moreover, in light of the rapidly developing and evolving crisis at Columbine and the inabihty to predict Harris’ and Klebold’s movements and reactions, I cannot conclude that the decisions made and implemented by the individual Sheriff Defendants were unreasonable. See Medina, 960 F.2d at 1496. Thus, this Uhlrig factor has not been met. e. Uhlrig Test — Fifth Element-“Conscience Shocking” Conduct The fifth Uhlrig element requires that a defendant’s conduct, when viewed in total, must be “conscience shocking” to the court. To “shock the conscience,” a plaintiff must do more than show that the government intentionally or recklessly caused injury to a plaintiff by abusing or misusing government power. The plaintiff must demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking. Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 574. The Uhlrig Court acknowledged, however, that the level of culpabihty that must be shown under the “shocks the conscience” standard is difficult to define. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) provides a gauge to assess conduct under this difficult standard. The Supreme Court cast the Uhlrig principles into a sound framework, grounded in common sense, for analyzing those myriad situations involving law enforcement and governmental workers deployed in emergency situations. The Court reiterated the important principle that rejects “the lowest common denominator of customary tort liability as any mark of sufficiently shocking conduct” and held “that the Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process.” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 848-49, 118 S.Ct. 1708. The Court then observed that conscience-shocking behavior is most likely to be found “at the other end of the culpability spectrum” — that is, where there is an intent to do harm that is not justified by any government interest. Id. at 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708. The Lewis Court further recognized that in the middle range of the culpability spectrum, where the conduct is more than negligent but less than intentional, there may be some conduct that is egregious enough to state a substantive due process claim. See id. at 849-50, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Within this middle range, Lewis directs an examination of the circumstances surrounding the conduct at issue and the governmental interests at stake. The Lewis Court then points the inquiry to the official’s opportunity for deliberation while drawing helpful analogies to the Eighth Amendment prison context. See id. at 850-55, 118 S.Ct. 1708 citing, inter alia, Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986); City of Revere, 463 U.S. 239, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251. The marked differences between, for instance, a normal custodial situation in a prison and a violent disturbance in a prison demonstrates “why the deliberate indifference that shocks in the one case is less egregious in the other.” Lewis at 852-53, 118 S.Ct. 1708. The “deliberate indifference” standard is only utilized when actual deliberation is practical. Id. The Court looked to the level of culpability required for an Eighth Amendment violation in the prison context to the level required for substantive due process liability, instructing that the analysis rests upon: the luxury enjoyed by prison officials of having time to make unhurried judgments, upon the chance for repeated reflection, largely uncomplicated by the pulls of competing obligations. When such extended opportunities to do better are teamed with protracted failure even to care, indifference is truly shocking. But when unforeseen circumstances demand an officer’s instant judgment, even precipitate recklessness fails to inch close enough to harmful purpose to spark the shock that implicates “the large concerns of the governors and the governed.” Id. at 853-54, 118 S.Ct. 1708 quoting Daniels, 474 U.S. at 332, 106 S.Ct. 662. Lewis specifically analogized a prison official’s response in a riot situation to a police officer’s conduct in the high speed chase before it. Both situations require the officer’s instant judgment, and, accordingly, no substantive due process claim can lie unless the defendant official’s conduct was unjustified by any government interest and was “tainted by an improper or malicious motive.” Id. at 855, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Therefore, in assessing the constitutionality of law enforcement actions, I must distinguish between emergency action and actions taken after opportunity for reflection. Appropriately, I must give great deference to the decisions that necessarily occur in emergency situations. With that caveat in mind, I look to the nature of the official conduct on the spectrum of culpability that has tort liability at one end; conduct in which the state actor intended to cause harm and in which the state lacks any justifiable interest on the other. In emergency situations, only conduct that reaches that far point will shock the conscience and result in constitutional liability. Where the state actor has the luxury to truly deliberate about the decisions he or she is making, something less than unjustifiable intent to harm, such as calculated indifference, may suffice to shock the conscience. See also Radecki v. Barela, 146 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1103, 119 S.Ct. 869, 142 L.Ed.2d 771 (1999) (sheriffs deputies had no time for deliberation in making instantaneous judgment call in suddenly explosive law enforcement situation; therefore no § 1983 claim based on substantive due process violation). In determining this question, I am also mindful that courts must be “ ‘reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision-making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.’ ” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) quoting Collins, 503 U.S. at 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061. Courts must “exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of [judges].” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258. See also Lewis, 523 at 842, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Also, there is concern that § 1983 liability not replace state tort law and the need for deference to local policymakers in making decisions impacting upon public safety. See Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 573. Moreover, the Due Process Clause “is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised [government] decisions.” Collins, 503 U.S. at 129, 112 S.Ct. 1061. Plaintiffs allege that Deputy Gardner learned of the attack on Columbine at approximately 11:15 a.m. on April 20, 1999. C/O ¶ 16. When Deputy Gardner arrived at the senior parking lot approximately three minutes later, he spotted one of the attackers, likely Klebold, near an entrance to the school. Id. at ¶ 23. After firing several shots at Deputy Gardner, Klebold entered the school. Id. at ¶ 24. From Plaintiffs’ allegations, I cannot determine the precise time that elapsed between the time Harris and Klebold entered the school building until they entered the Library and attacked the Library Plaintiffs. It is apparent from the allegations, however, that the elapsed time was mere minutes. See C/O ¶¶ 47-49. During these minutes, the Deputy Sheriff Defendants heard gunshots and explosions inside the school. C/O ¶ 27. These circumstances are directly analogous to the prison riot discussed in Lewis during which state officials were forced to make “split-second judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 853, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Under such circumstances, unless an intent to harm a victim is alleged, there is no liability under the Fourteenth Amendment redressable by an action under § 1983. See id. Plaintiffs allege that the individual Sheriff Defendants “acted recklessly and in conscious and unreasonable disregard to the serious and immediate risk to the students in the library....” C/O ¶ 71. They allege further that the individual Sheriff Defendants’ actions, and failures to act, constitute deliberate indifference to, and willful and callous disregard of, the constitutional rights ... of [the Library Plaintiffs]. Id. at ¶ 72. Plaintiffs do not allege that these Defendants acted with an intent to harm Plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no liability under the Fourteenth Amendment redressable by § 1983 action. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 853, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Assuming, arguendo, the proper standard were pleaded, under the totality of the circumstances facing the Deputy Sheriff Defendants on the morning of April 20, 1999, pursuant to Lewis and its progeny, Claim One may not be maintained. It is beyond cavil that the Deputy Sheriff Defendants faced an unprecedented situation on the morning of April 20, 1999. As students lay wounded and dying outside the school, masses of students were running from inside where gunshots and explosions could be heard. Unlike a high-speed vehicle chase, the exact nature and extent of this criminal attack was unknown to the Deputy Sheriff Defendants. The decisions made by these Defendants in the first moments of the attack came under shocking, violent, and “rapidly evolving” circumstances leaving no opportunity for “unhurried judgments,” “repeated reflection,” or the “luxury of a second chance.” See Lewis at 848, 852-53, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Citing cases from foreign jurisdictions, Plaintiffs contend that the Lewis formulation is inapplicable, even to acts taken in an emergency situation, when the police officers had time to deliberate before performing the alleged unconstitutional act. See e.g., Feist v. Simonson, 222 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2000); Helseth v. Burch, 109 F.Supp.2d 1066 (D.Minn.2000) (Helseth I); Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 1999 WL 482310 (E.D.Pa.1999). Feist and Helseth I were overruled in Helseth v. Burch, 258 F.3d 867 (8th Cir.2001) (Helseth II) and Schieber is distinguishabl