articipating in the celebration); Estate of Amos ex rel. Amos v. City of Page, Arizona, 257 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff died after wandering into desert after his car crossed the center line on a highway and collided head on with an oncoming vehicle; police officers were not liable for abandoning search for plaintiff because they played no part in creating the danger to which plaintiff ultimately succumbed); Cushman v. City of Troutdale, 2009 WL 890505, passim (D. Or. Mar. 30, 2009)(plaintiff was stabbed in the neck by parolee; nevertheless, danger creation claim still not viable because state parole officer did not play a significant role in creating the dangerous situation); Botello v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 3918930, passim (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2009)(plaintiff, a student, was physically attacked, suffering skull fracture; nevertheless, danger creation claim could not proceed because state not alleged to have engaged in any affirmative conduct); compare Cullum v. Teton Cnty., 2011 WL 841431, passim (D. Idaho Mar. 7, 2011) (plaintiff being struck in the chest three times by fellow municipal employee was not significant enough danger to state claim based upon danger creation doctrine). This Court declines to extend the doctrine beyond its present boundaries.
Id. at 848 n. 8. See also Cullum v. Teton County, 4:10-CV-293-BLW, 2011 WL 841431 (D. Idaho Mar. 7, 2011). Substantive due process vindicates only those interests that are fundamental. Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 995 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation omitted).