of any federal right that varies from locality to locality. Although federal courts are certainly competent at interpreting state- laws, their competence would be tested by the array of local codes and thus the lack of relevant precedents. For this reason, too, plaintiffs cannot state a section 1983 claim based on defendant’s alleged violation of various provisions of the San Francisco Housing Code. C. The Fourteenth Amendment Claim In their Fourth Cause of Action plaintiffs allege that defendant viol ls within the “danger creation” exception. Under that exception, when a state official’s “conduct places a person in peril in deliberate indifference to their safety, that conduct creates a constitutional claim.” See Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119 (holding that
holding that the plaintiff who was undisputedly not resisting arrest was dragged to the front of the police car slammed against the hood of the vehicle and forcibly handcuffed  and placed in very tight handcuffs even though they were quickly adjusted raised an issue of fact for the jury whether the force used against him was excessive holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding plaintiff stated claim in his individual capacity holding that there was a factual issue about whether a supervisors conduct was outrageous where the supervisor insulted and demeaned the plaintiff every day for years told him to divorce his wife forced him to work on a power line in the rain and criticized him about personal matters in front of other employees after learning that the plaintiff suffered from depression holding that plaintiff stated a section 1983 claim against police officers who after examining plaintiff and finding him in medical need canceled a 911 call to the paramedics dragged plaintiff from his porch where he was in public view into an empty house then locked the door and left him there alone