N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSEPH TOM ADA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M ARK SIM ONSON, Offic e r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-15310 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00856-GEB DAD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia G a rland E. B urre ll, Jr., Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 4, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TR OTT, THOM AS, and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Jose ph Tom a da

a p pe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in Tom a da ’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion re ga rding pe rsona l injurie s tha t Tom a da susta ine d during a n a lte rc ation with two m

e n. W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED D EC 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).“ As a ge ne ra l rule , m e m be rs of the public have no c onstitutiona l right to sue sta te e m ploy e e s who fa il to prote c t the m a g a inst ha

rm inflic t e d by

third pa rtie s.” L.W . v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir. 1992). B ut “ da nge r c re ation,” or

“ a ffirm ative c onduc t on thepa rt of the sta

te in pla c ing the pla intiff in da nge r,” is a

n e xc e ption to the

ge ne ra l rule . Id. The undispute d

fa c ts fata lly

unde rc ut Tom a da ’ s c la im s tha t Offic e r Sim onson a ffirm ative ly

pla c e d him

in da nge r by orde ring him

to wa l k down a de se rte d da

rk roa d “ in the sam e dire c tion tha t the knife -wie lding a ssa i la nts we re trave ling,” whe re he wa s a c c o s te d by the m and se riously

injure d. Afte r Tom a da ’ s a ssa ila

nts le ft the vic inity

of the ba r and we re followe d by Offic e r Sim onson, Tom a da did not dire c t ly

go ba c k into theba

r, re trie ve his sister, and wa lk down thestre e t “ a s orde re d.” In fa c t, Tom a da we nt ba c k into theba

r for no m ore tha

n 10 m inute s. The n, he and his sister stood outside the ba r while the y sm oke d c iga

re tte s. Five m inute s la

te r the y wa lke d down First Stre e t. W hile the y we re wa lking, Toma da

he a rd B ilbre y

and B e c c hio— “ the two guy s with the knife ”

— y e lling profa

nitie s at the m , a

nd Tom a d a re sponde d with ta unts of his own. Nota bly , whe n Tom a da

and his sister e m e rge d from the ba r, Offic e r Sim onson wa s sitting in his c a r, and he sa id nothing to the m . As fa r a s Offic e r Sim onson kne w , be c a

use he ha d orde re d a

c a b for B ilbre y and B e c c hio, the y we re -2-no longe r in the vic inity . Judge B urre ll wa s c orre c t whe n he sa i d, Tom a da ’ s “ba re a sse rtion a

nd unsupporte d c onc lusion doe s not c onta in fa c ts suffic ie nt to support” his c la i m tha t Offic e r Sim onson kne w tha t Tom a da ’ s would-bea ssa ila nts ha d a knife , a nd orde re d Tom a da

to wa lk down a da

rk, de se rte d

stre e t towa

rds his a ssa ila nts. Am ong othe r de fic ie nc ie s in Tom a da ’ s e vide ntia ry c a se is the la c k of re lia ble e vide nc e tha

t Offic e r Sim onson orde re d Tom a da to wa lk in thesa

m e dire c tion a s the thugs. In se pa rating thepla

y e rs, Offic e r Sim o nson sa id, “ l e t those guy s wa lk tha

t wa y , y ou go tha

t wa y , othe rwise e ve ry one he re is looking a t a drunk in public .” The only

fa ir infe re nc e is tha

t Offic e r Sim onson, who wa s atte m pting to se pa rat e the “ g roups,” wa s pointing in diffe re nt dire c tions. Theinfe re nc e unde r the s e c irc um sta

nc e s tha t he wa s pointing all of the m in the sa m e dire c tion is utte

rly illogic a l. Unlike the c a se s upon whic h Tom a d a re lie s, Offic e r Sim onson did not (1) le ave Tom a da

stra nde d in a high c rim e are a , W ood v. Ostra nde r, 879 F.2d 583, 588 (9th C ir. 1989); (2) e

je c t him from

a ba r in fre e z ing te m

pe rature s a

nd pre v e n t him from re e n te ring the ba

r or driving a

way , M unge r v. C ity

of Gla sgow Polic e De p’ t, 227 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th C ir. 2000); or (3) c anc e l pa ram e dic s a

nd le ave him

a lone whe n he ne e d e d m e dic a l atte ntion, Pe nilla v. C ity of Huntington Pa rk, 115 F.3d 707, 710 (9th C ir. 1997). -3-W e re solve this c a se on the ba sis of a n a bse nc e of proof of a

substa ntive due proc e s s viola

tion. The re fore , we do not re a c h qua lifie d im m unity . B ut tha

t doc trine , if a

pplic a ble , would de m and sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

v or of Offic e r Sim onson. AFFIRM ED.

-4-