MARTINEZ V. HIGH, No. 22-16335 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In this case, the plaintiff, Desiree Martinez, sued Channon High, a City of Clovis police officer, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Officer High violated her due process rights by disclosing her confidential domestic violence report to her abuser, Kyle Pennington, who was also a Clovis police officer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Officer High.
The appellate court held that while Officer High did violate Ms. Martinez's due process rights under the state-created danger doctrine by disclosing her confidential domestic violence report to Mr. Pennington, the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. The court explained that state actors are generally not liable for failing to prevent the acts of private parties, but an exception applies where the state affirmatively places the plaintiff in danger by acting with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger. In this case, Officer High's disclosure of Ms. Martinez's confidential report to Pennington, whom she knew was an alleged abuser, placed Ms. Martinez in actual, foreseeable danger. However, it was not clearly established in 2013 that Officer High’s actions violated Ms. Martinez’s substantive due process rights. The court clarified that going forward, an officer would be liable under the state-created danger doctrine when the officer discloses a victim’s confidential report to a violent perpetrator in a manner that increases the risk of retaliation against the victim.
Court Description: Qualified Immunity/State-Created Danger Doctrine. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order granting qualified immunity to Channon High, a City of Clovis police officer, in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Desiree Martinez, alleging that Officer High violated her due process rights under the state-created danger doctrine when she disclosed Martinez’s confidential domestic violence report to Martinez’s abuser Kyle Pennington, another Clovis police officer.
The panel first determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by entertaining Officer High’s successive summary judgment motion on remand from this court’s decision in Martinez’s prior interlocutory appeal.
Addressing the merits, the panel held that Officer High violated Martinez’s due process rights. Although state actors generally are not liable for failing to prevent the acts of private parties, an exception to this rule—the “state- created danger” exception—applies where the state affirmatively places the plaintiff in danger by acting with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger. Here, Officer High’s affirmative conduct of disclosing Martinez’s confidential complaint to Pennington, whom Officer High knew was an alleged abuser, placed Martinez in actual, foreseeable danger. Officer High also acted with deliberate indifference toward the risk of future abuse, given that she knew Pennington was violent and under investigation for domestic violence.
The panel nevertheless held that Officer High was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2013 that Officer High’s conduct violated Martinez’s substantive due process rights. The panel clarified that going forward, an officer is liable under the state-created danger doctrine when the officer discloses a victim’s confidential report to a violent perpetrator in a manner that increases the risk of retaliation against the victim.
Concurring in the judgment, Judge Bumatay agreed with the majority’s conclusion that Officer High was properly afforded an opportunity to file a successive summary judgment motion and that she was entitled to qualified immunity based on the lack of any clearly established law. Because no clearly established law existed at the time of the incident, it was unnecessary to reach whether Martinez’s allegations against Officer High amount to a claim under the state-created danger doctrine.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.