Claudia Herrera v. Lausd, 18 F.4th 1156

Background

Erick Ortiz, an autistic high school student, drowned during a June 2014 school field‑trip to a public pool monitored by three lifeguards.
School aide Lopez had been supervising Erick from a designated observation area (pool rules) and saw Erick go from the shallow end into the locker room.
Lopez waited outside the locker room exit believing Erick was changing; Erick instead returned to the pool unseen and drowned; Lopez began searching five minutes later.
Erick’s parents sued the aide and the school district under state law (negligence, wrongful death) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (state‑created danger / deprivation of familial relationship); the district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the subjective deliberate‑indifference standard for non‑detainee state‑created‑danger claims was met and whether Lopez had the requisite subjective awareness of risk.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: Lopez was unaware Erick had reentered the pool and did not subjectively intend to expose him to danger; summary judgment for defendants affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Castro/Kingsley’s objective detainee standard applies to non‑detainee failure‑to‑protect claims	Plaintiffs argued the court should apply an objective standard or otherwise find liability for Lopez’s supervisory choices	Defendants argued Ninth Circuit precedent requires a subjective deliberate‑indifference standard for non‑detainees	Court held existing Ninth Circuit precedent controls: non‑detainee failure‑to‑protect claims require a subjective test (not Castro’s objective prong)
Whether Lopez subjectively knew Erick was at risk when Erick returned to the pool	Plaintiffs said a jury could disbelieve Lopez and infer he knew or was willfully blind to Erick’s presence in the pool	Defendants said Lopez reasonably believed Erick was in the locker room and had no actual knowledge of danger	Held Lopez was unaware Erick had reentered the pool; no genuine dispute of material fact on subjective awareness — summary judgment affirmed
Whether Lopez’s earlier supervisory choices (allowing pool access, not entering pool observation area, earlier loss of sight) amounted to deliberate indifference	Plaintiffs argued those choices placed Erick in a more dangerous position and showed intent or willful blindness	Defendants emphasized presence of three lifeguards and that Erick was never entirely unsupervised	Held earlier choices did not amount to subjective deliberate indifference given context and other supervisors; no liability
Whether the state‑created‑danger exception applies where multiple supervisors (aide + lifeguards) existed	Plaintiffs argued presence of other supervisors does not absolve responsibility	Defendants argued multiple lifeguards meant Erick was not left completely unprotected	Held presence of lifeguards and lack of subjective knowledge by Lopez showed Erick was not left completely unprotected; defendants not liable

Key Cases Cited

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (adopted an objective standard for excessive‑force detainee claims)
Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (extended an objective reasonableness prong to detainee failure‑to‑protect claims)
Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirmed summary judgment where teacher lacked actual knowledge of immediate risk)
Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2010) (applied Farmer subjective test pre‑Castro)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (established subjective deliberate‑indifference standard)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no affirmative duty to protect absent custody)
L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (state‑created danger framework requires awareness and intent)
Dent v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2018) (declined to apply Castro’s objective standard to non‑detainees)
Martinez v. City of Clovis, 943 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 2019) (applied subjective standard to non‑detainee failure‑to‑protect claim)
Hernandez v. City of San Jose, 897 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (example where police were found deliberately indifferent)
Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Dep’t, 227 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (police left person exposed to lethal risk — deliberate indifference)
Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (police left neighborhood without promised protection; liability found)