context: The facts here are markedly different: the plaintiffs have alleged that Wojcik and Savage violated Pauluk's constitutional rights by moving him into a municipal building where he was exposed to toxic mold over the course of several years -- along with countless other employees, including the defendants. Wojcik and Savage's decision to reassign Pauluk more closely resembles the cases in which this court has declined to find a cognizable due process violation due to the unforeseeable nature of the' plaintiffs' injuries and the fact that the danger facing the plaintiff existed independent of state action.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 147 F.3d 1054, 1061
citation_a.parenthetical: finding no liability where an individual was shot during a barroom brawl' by an off-duty deputy on the grounds that the injury was an unforeseeable consequence of a county policy requiring off-duty officers to carry a firearm
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Patel, 648 F.3d at 976 (holding no rational fact finder could conclude that a teacher acted with deliberate indifference to her student’s well-being because the teacher “did not know there was any immediate danger in allowing [the plaintiff] to briefly use the next-door bathroom alone”); Huffman v. County of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.1998) (finding no liability where an individual was shot during a barroom brawl' by an off-duty deputy on the grounds that the injury was an unforeseeable consequence of a county policy requiring off-duty officers to carry a firearm); see also Lawrence v. United States, 340 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.2003) (“[I]n each of the cases in which we have applied the danger-creation exception, ultimate injury to the plaintiff was foreseeable.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 340 F.3d 952, 957
citation_b.parenthetical: "[I]n each of the cases in which we have applied the danger-creation exception, ultimate injury to the plaintiff was foreseeable."
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Patel, 648 F.3d at 976 (holding no rational fact finder could conclude that a teacher acted with deliberate indifference to her student’s well-being because the teacher “did not know there was any immediate danger in allowing [the plaintiff] to briefly use the next-door bathroom alone”); Huffman v. County of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.1998) (finding no liability where an individual was shot during a barroom brawl' by an off-duty deputy on the grounds that the injury was an unforeseeable consequence of a county policy requiring off-duty officers to carry a firearm); see also Lawrence v. United States, 340 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.2003) (“[I]n each of the cases in which we have applied the danger-creation exception, ultimate injury to the plaintiff was foreseeable.”).