In Estate of Gilmore v. Buckley, the First Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a criminal attack by a furloughed inmate (Bradford Prendergast) with a known history of violent behavior toward Patricia Gilmore could incur municipal liability under section 1983 when Prendergast murdered Gilmore within 24 hours of his release on furlough from prison. The 'Gilmore' court held that the various State and county officials having custody of the assailant owed no affirmative duty to protect the victim from the attack and therefore had not deprived her of life without due process under the 14th amendment. Because the assailant was not an agent of the State, the court declined to find that a special relationship existed between the victim and the State and affirmed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under section 1983. The 'Gilmore' court erred, because a constitutionally protected special relationship and correlative duty to prevent foreseeable harm should arise where the State knows of a specific threat to an individual and maintains custody or control over either the crime victim or its perpetrator. Where these circumstances exist, courts should impose a duty to protect from third party attacks. 85 footnotes.