Opinion ID: 795169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prong Four: Did Stiles Create A Danger?

Text: 53 Given that Sanford has failed to show that Stiles demonstrated the requisite level of fault, her claim can go no further. However, we note that Sanford has also failed to create a question of fact as to the fourth prong of the state-created danger test. Given our opinion in Bright, we ask if Stiles used her authority in a way that created a danger to Michael or that rendered [him] more vulnerable to danger than had [she] not acted at all. Bright, 443 F.3d at 281. 54 Sanford alleges eleven specific affirmative acts on the part of Stiles. (Appellant's Br. at 25-26.) For example, she alleges that Stiles (1) Interject[ed] herself into Michael's mental status, (2) Cut[] Michael off from other sources of aid, (3) Question[ed] Michael in a manner that pushed him toward suicide, (4) Misdiagnos[ed] Michael's psychological condition, (4) Intentionally decid[ed] not to refer Michael to the school psychologist, (5) Intentionally decid[ed] not to contact Michael's parent, and (6) Refus[ed] Michael's request to reveal the identify of the person who had turned in the note. ( Id. ) We agree with the District Court that [i]n this case, the link between the Defendants' conduct and Michael Sanford's untimely death is far too attenuated to justify imposition of liability. We reach this decision based on several considerations. First, as the District Court noted, Michael visited Stiles on only two occasions — once when she initially called him into her office and again when Michael asked her who she had received the note from. There is no evidence that Michael was agitated by these meetings, or that they contributed in any way to his suicidal feelings. 55 Second, contrary to Sanford's contentions, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Michael relied on Stiles for support or guidance. The primary encounter between Stiles and Michael was initiated by Stiles, and Michael repeatedly indicated that nothing was troubling him. Finally, Stiles did not in any way interfere with Sanford's parental relationship with her son. She did not, for example, suggest that Michael not speak with his mother. Sanford's choice not to intervene, for example, once she had seen Michael's instant messages referring to suicide, was not influenced by Stiles. 56 As the District Court noted, Sanford has attempted to recharacterize Stiles' failures as affirmative actions. We believe that this case is more about Stiles' failure to prevent Sanford's death. As we have stated many times, mere failure to protect an individual ... does not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 284 (citing DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 197, 109 S.Ct. 998) (internal quotation marks omitted).