Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawFamily LawFederal CourtsTortsDue ProcessSection 1983Restraining OrdersPolice Enforcement

Facts

Jessica Gonzales obtained a Colorado restraining order against her estranged husband. After he took their three daughters without advance arrangements, she repeatedly contacted Castle Rock police, showed them the order, and asked them to enforce it, but the officers allegedly told her to wait and did not take meaningful action. Later that night, her husband arrived at the police station, opened fire, was killed by police, and the bodies of the three daughters were found in his truck. Gonzales then brought a § 1983 action claiming the town had deprived her of a property interest in enforcement of the restraining order.

Issue

Whether a person who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having police enforce that order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated. More specifically, the question was whether Colorado law gave Gonzales a legitimate claim of entitlement to police enforcement sufficient to trigger procedural due process protection.

Rule

To have a procedural due process property interest in a government benefit, a person must have more than a unilateral expectation and instead a legitimate claim of entitlement created by state law. A benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion, and an indirect or incidental benefit from governmental action directed at a third party does not amount to a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tucson, Maya Ortiz obtained a state protective order against her former partner. An Arizona statute says officers "shall arrest" a violator upon probable cause, but officers who receive Maya's complaint decide not to act that evening because they are handling a major highway pileup. Maya sues the city under § 1983, claiming a property interest in enforcement of the order.

Is Maya most likely to establish a procedural due process property interest?

Explanation. A procedural due process property interest requires a legitimate claim of entitlement, not merely a strong expectation. The majority held that even language such as "shall arrest" does not clearly create an entitlement when read against the longstanding tradition of police discretion and competing enforcement demands. Thus mandatory wording alone is insufficient to create protected property.