the Fourteenth ‘Amendment because “it acted with deliberate indifference and/or created significant risk of harm to residents, including the risk of harm caused by the actions of third parties.” First Amended Complaint at ¶ 40. “As a general rule, members of the public have no constitutional right to sue state employees who fail to protect them against harm inflicted by third parties.” L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1992). “This general rule is modified by two exceptions: (1) the ‘special relationship’ exception; and (2) the ‘danger creation’ exception.” Id. It is undisputed that plaintiffs were not in a “special relationship” with defendant; defendant was merely the landlord. See Estate of Amos ex rel. Amos v. City of Page, Arizona, 257 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, plaintiffs’ claim survives only if it
holding that the special relationship exception did not apply because the decedent was not in defendants custody recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding that the special needs exception did not apply to very similar facts holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that the special relationship exception must be confined to cases in which a person is taken into state custody against his will