Michael Nichols v. Guillermo Fernandez, 686 F. App'x 532

Plaintiffs Michael, Mindy, and Georgia Nichols sued Palm Springs police officers (Rae Fernandez, Gil Fernandez, Matthew Beard) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming defendants exposed them to danger by revealing their status as confidential informants.
Rae authored two police reports describing interactions with Michael and Mindy (identifying them as pawnshop owners, noting texts, a ride given to a burglary suspect, and answers about purchasing stolen goods).
One report was released to the district attorney and Mindy; the other to the district attorney and probation—reports were not publicly disseminated and did not expressly label them as confidential informants.
Plaintiffs later received threats related to their informant work but provided no evidence linking those threats to the police reports.
The district court granted summary judgment for all officers; plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding no constitutional violation and that Rae is entitled to qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers violated due process via state-created danger by revealing informant status	Rae’s police reports revealed their identity as confidential informants, creating danger	Reports didn’t identify them as informants, weren’t publicly released, thus didn’t create a known/obvious danger	No liability; reports did not create a specific danger caused by officers
Whether other officers (Gil Fernandez, Beard) personally endangered plaintiffs	They participated in disclosures or otherwise endangered plaintiffs	No evidence they disclosed informant status or personally participated in violation	Summary judgment for Gil and Beard affirmed (no personal participation)
Admissibility of unsigned/unsworn declarations offered by plaintiffs	Declarations supported existence of disclosure	Declarations are unsworn and inadmissible on summary judgment	District court properly excluded them
Whether Rae is entitled to qualified immunity	Even if reports increased risk, existing law didn’t clearly establish that filing such reports is unconstitutional	Rae argues no clearly established law condemning this conduct	Rae entitled to qualified immunity; summary judgment affirmed

Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (articulates state-created danger standard)
Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (individual § 1983 liability requires personal participation)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified immunity for discretionary functions)
Tarabochia v. Adkins, 766 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2014) (two-step qualified immunity analysis)
Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (clearly established law standard)
Gatlin ex rel. Estate of Gatlin v. Green, 362 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2004) (confidential informant’s risk voluntarily assumed; no state-created danger)
Summar on Behalf of Summar v. Bennet, 157 F.3d 1054 (6th Cir. 1998) (officer’s inaction didn’t increase risk assumed by informant)
Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (requirements for admissible declarations at summary judgment)