Citations
- 148 F. Supp. 3d 1232
Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss Plaintiffs Court Access Claims Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments on the Basis of Qualified Immunity, filed May 23, 2014 (Doc. 45)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on October 23, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether Defendants Dan Sandoval, Roger Adams, Joseph M'ateju, and Beth Schaefer (collectively “Individual DOH Defendants”) violated Plaintiff AM.’s right' to court access under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America when they discharged A.M. in 1979 without opportunity to object and when they, during her subsequent confinement, did not ensure A.M.’s access to the judicial system; and (ri) whether qualified immunity protects the Individual DOH Defendants because the law was not clearly established. The Court will grant the MTD, because the Individual DOH Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court concludes that: (i) A.M. was denied meaningful access to the courts in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (ii) the Individual DOH Defendants proximately caused Mary Evan’s — the owner of the Homestead House — violation of A.M.’s First and Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts; and (in) the Individual DOH Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because proximate causation for First and Fourteenth Amendment court access violations was not clearly established in 1979, and is not clearly established today. The Court therefore grants the MTD.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court takes its facts from the Complaint, as it must when considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has reorganized the factual material in the Complaint, however, to explain the facts more clearly.
1. The Parties.
A.M. is a sixty-six-year-old woman who has been diagnosed with various developmental disabilities. See Amended Original Complaint for Damages ¶ 66, at. 18, filed June 14, 2013 in the state court, filed July 26, 2013 in the district court (Doc. 1-2)(“Complaint”). A.M. was involuntarily committed to the New Mexico, Department of Health (“DOH”) by court order on May 8, 1963, when she was sixteen years old, because her developmental disabilities rendered her unable to care for herself. See Complaint ¶¶ 67-69, at 18-19. Because of her disabilities, AM. brings this action through her guardian ad litem, Joleen Youngers. See Complaint ¶ 66, at 18.
The DOH operates all of the state facilities that house and treat people with developmental disabilities in the State of New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 8, at 4. One of these facilities is the Los Lunas Center for Persons with Developmental Disabilities — formerly known as the Los Lunas Hospital and Training School (“Los Lunas Hospital”). Complaint ¶ 8, at 4, The Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School (“Fort Stanton”) was another. DOH facility for individuals with developmental disabilities, and was an affiliate of the.Los Lunas Hospital; Complaint ¶¶ 8-9, at 4. Because the Complaint refers to the Los Lunas Hospital and Fort Stanton collectively as the “Training School,” the Court will do so throughout this Memorandum Opinion (“MO”). Complaint 111, at 1-2; id. 1111, at 4-5. Moreover, because the Complaint refers to the DOH and the Training School collectively as “the DOH Defendants,” the Court will do so throughout this MO. Complaint ¶ 11, at 4
Before . 1992, the New Mexico Human Services Department (“HSD”)was responsible for operating Adult Protective Services (“APS”) in New Mexico. Complaint ¶ 22, at 8. APS is responsible, for protecting adults with developmental disabilities from exploitation, abuse, and neglect. See Complaint ¶ 22, at 8. APS must also ensure that those adults receive the treatment and social services that they need. . See Complaint ¶ 22, at 8. From 1992 to 2005, the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department (“CYFD”) inherited HSD’s responsibilities for all protective services in the state, including APS. Complaint ¶ 23, at 8. CYFD was responsible for the continuing coordination and supervision of APS, for adopting rules and regulations necessary to implement and operate APS, and for evaluating APS’ effectiveness. See Complaint ¶23, at 8. In 2005, the New Mexico Aging and Long-Term Services Department (“ALTSD”) inherited APS from CYFD and has since then operated APS. Complaint ¶ 24, at 8-9. Similar to its predecessors, the ALTSD is responsible for the continuing coordination and supervision of APS, for adopting rules and regulations necessary to implement and operate APS, and for evaluating APS’ effectiveness. See Complaint ¶ 25, at 9. Because the Complaint refers to the ALTSD, APS, and the DOH Defendants as the “State Agency Defendants,” the Court will do so throughout this MO. Complaint ¶ 27, at 9.
Schaefer was an attorney for the DOH and the Training School from September 13,1976, to December 31, 2001. See Complaint ¶ 14, at 5. Sandoval was the Director of Resident Living for the.Training School between 1979 and. 1985. See Complaint ¶ 16, at 5. As Director of Resident Living, Sandoval was in charge of social services and the Training School’s social workers. See Complaint ¶ 45, at 12. Sandoval was also a member of the Training School’s Screening Committee on Admissions and Releases (“SCAR”) and, at times, its chairman. Complaint ¶ 16, at 6.
Defendant Roger Adams was the Training School’s Deputy Administrator or Acting Administrator “during the relevant time period.” Complaint ¶ 18, at 6. Adams made hundreds of decisions regarding the placement and treatment of Training School residents — including the Training School’s placement and discharge decisions relating to A.M. See Complaint ¶ 18, at 6. Adams chaired SCAR, attended most SCAR • meetings, and - approved A.M.’s discharge from1 aftercare without taking any steps to ascertain whether she would be safe or have her medical and other needs met. See Complaint ¶ 18, at 6.
Defendant Joseph Mateju was the Training School Administrator “during the relevant time period.” Complaint ¶ 20; at 7. As Administrator, he made the final decisions regarding the placement and treatment of Training School residents, and all placement and discharge decisions relating to A.M. See Complaint ¶ 20, at 7. He also had the authority to unilaterally accept and remove individuals from the Training School, See Complaint ¶ 20, at 7. Mateju was responsible for the placement of many residents — including A.M. — into third-party homes, boarding homes, and other outside facilities. See Complaint ¶20, at 7. Mateju personally attended SCAR meetings during which A.M. was discussed, and he personally approved decisions regarding her discharge from DOH treatment without taking any steps to ascertain whether she would be safe, or have serious medical and other needs addressed. See Complaint ¶ 20, at 7. Mateju had responsibility for ensuring that appropriate measures were taken to: (i) provide for A.M.’s health, safety, and well-being; (ii) ensure that she received appropriate services; and (iii) ensure that A.M. continued to receive those services in any third-party placements. See Complaint ¶ 20, at 7-8.
2. The Aftercare Program.
Over a period of two decades — through the 1970s and 1980s — the DOH Defendants systematically transferred hundreds of developmentally disabled individuals from state institutions to various private third parties throughout New Mexico. See Complaint ¶'2, at 2; id. ¶ 37, at 10. These private third parties ranged from boarding homes to private residences and commercial enterprises. See Complaint ¶ 2, at 2. The Defendants called this program “aftercare”; the developmentally disabled individuals placed with third parties through the aftercare program were called “aftercare residents.” Complaint ¶'2, at 2; id. ¶ 38, at 11.
The Defendants placed aftercare residents with private third parties “without anyone’s informed consent, without the appointment of guardians or any other legally-authorized surrogate decision-makers, without permission from the courts that committed them to the state institutions ..., and without due process of law.” Complaint ¶ 3, at 2. In' some cases, the Defendants contacted ex parte the judicial authorities that had committed aftercare residents to the Training School and “provided misleading information to them concerning the status of individuals discharged from the Training School.” Complaint ¶ 3, at 2-3. In other cases, the Defendants did not communicate with the judicial authorities that committed individuals to the Training School before transferring those individuals to private third parties. See Complaint ¶ 3, at 2-3.
After transferring aftercare residents to their third-party placements, the DOH and the Individual DOH Defendants “abandoned” them. Complaint ¶ 3, at 2. The DOH and the Individual DOH Defendants neither provided them with the services that they needed, nor protected them from abuse, neglect, or exploitation. See Complaint ¶ 3, at 2. When the events alleged in the Complaint occurred, approximately eight social workers at the Training School oversaw 431 aftercare residents, “while also performing social work duties for hundreds, of people still residing” at the Training School. Complaint ¶48, at 13. Although Training School policies required Training School personnel to oversee and conduct periodic visits of aftercare. residents, the.DOH Defendants “did not use any system to ensure that residents in aftercare would be safe or that they would receive minimally adequate services.” Complaint ¶ 43, at 12.
Sandoval, despite being charged with overseeing the Training School’s social workers, “did not know of any guidelines on how residents in aftercare placements would be cared for, did not know of a system to follow up with those residents, and did not know of a system .., to know how many residents were placed in private third-party placements.” Complaint ¶49, at 13. Sandoval did not know “what the conditions of the residents was” or “what services they needed.” Complaint ¶ 49, at 13.
Training School administrators — including the Individual DOH Defendants — were aware that the social workers assigned to oversee aftercare placements often did not visit aftercare residents in their third-party placements. See Complaint ¶ 47, at 12. They were aware that the social workers— when they checked on the aftercare residents at all — usually relied On telephone calls to the private third parties who ad ministered the placements rather than an in-person contact. See Complaint ¶ 47, at 12-13. Training School administrators— including Adams; Mateju, and Schaefer— had frequent conversations about the problem of social workers’ failure to make their required visits or to contact aftercare residents. See Complaint ¶ 51,' at 13-14. The DOH Defendants and the Individual DOH Defendants were “well aware of the dangers residents faced due to -the way in which the aftercare program was operated, but they proceeded anyway.” Complaint ¶52, at 14. -!
The “well-known failure”-of the Training School’s social. workers to provide oversight for aftercare residents- drove the DOH Defendants and the Individual DOH Defendants to “discharge” Training School residents from aftercare “whenever and however possible.” Complaint ¶ 53, at 14. Schaefer supervised changes to the Training School’s discharge procedures in the late 1970s and early 1980s. See Complaint ¶55, at 14. Specifically, Schaefer told Training School administrators that “there were too many residents-on aftercare” and recommended that the Training School discharge residents from aftercare. Complaint ¶ 54, at 14. Sometime between September 1978 and the end of 1980, Schaefer began advising that all aftercare residents should be discharged from the Training School “without - judicial review and without any due process protections whatsoever.” Complaint ¶ 57, at 15.'
Schaefer told Training School administrators that “the state institutions’ custody of people committed to the institution by court order automatically lapsed” on the New Mexico Mental Health Code’s effective date of July 1, 1977, despite judicial orders of commitment for an indeterminate period! Complaint ¶ 56, at 15. Schaefer.advised Training School administrators that a change in the Mental Health Code meant that the court orders committing aftercare residents to State custody were void — regardless whether the residents’ original placements with private third parties had been judicially reviewed. See Complaint ¶ 56, at 15. Schaefer explained to Training School administrators and staff that “it’s different now and you don’t need a discharge order signed by a judge.” Complaint ¶ 61, -at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted).
According to Schaefer, Training School administrators were “reluctant to -proceed without a paper trail, so [she] instructed Defendant Adams to ‘just put a note in ... the file that says ..-. [that the aftercare resident] was discharged.’ ” Complaint ¶ 61, at 17 (alterations in Complaint); Once there was a “piece of paper in-the file,” residents could be, in Schaefer’s words, “cut loose” from the Training School without consideration of judicial orders, the residents’ health and safety, or the residents’ need for services. Complaint ¶61, at 17. Schaefer neither conducted legal research nor. consulted legal experts in developing these-, new discharge policies. See Complaint ¶ 56, at 15.
Schaefer acknowledged that former Training School residents were particularly vulnerable, and in danger of abuse and exploitation, once they were no longer under the Training School’s supervision. See Complaint ¶ 60, at 16-17. Schaefer was aware when she designed and directed the new . aftercare discharge policy that Training School personnel had not done any discharge planning for aftercare residents, and had failed to make contact with residents before or after their discharge, to assure their health and safety, and to assure that they were not being abused or exploited. See Complaint ¶ 59, at 16. Schaefer considered the fallout from the danger that such a policy posed to aftercare residents “to be merely a public relations issue, not a legal obstacle.” Complaint ¶ 61, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Schaefer’s direction, Training School administrators “deliberately decided not to appoint surrogate decision-makers for its residents or to otherwise provide procedural due process” before removing residents’ names from the Training School’s rolls. Complaint ¶ 57, at 15. “Training School residents were not even informed that they were no longer clients of the Training School.” Complaint ¶ 57, at 15. Aftercare residents “were routinely removed from the rolls of Training School clients” based solely on letters that Mateju sent to the district attorney in the county where each resident was originally committed. Complaint ¶65, at 18. These letters did not “supply[] the background information necessary for discharge, including the circumstances of residents and whether the resident or a responsible adult consented to discharge.” Complaint ¶ 65, at 18. Instead, judicial authorities were “misled into believing that residents consented to and were happy in their placements.” Complaint ¶ 65, at 18.
In Sandoval’s view, “discharge from aftercare was not a complete separation of the Training School’s responsibility for residents.” Complaint ¶ 68, at 17-18. “Even after residents were discharged from aftercare, the Training School at times took action to respond to allegations of abuse when they came to their attention.” Complaint ¶ 64, at 18. DOH Defendants and Individual DOH Defendants, however, “failed to establish any system permitting residents to complain about them treatment, or any system permitting the Training School to provide oversight at third-party placements.” Complaint ¶ 64, at 18. The DOH Defendants and Individual DOH Defendants decided that discharging residents from aftercare eliminated the need for social worker visits. See Complaint ¶ 51, at 13-14. Sandoval has admitted that he “wouldn’t know whether somebody was going to be taken care of after discharge from aftercare, and it never crossed his mind to be concerned that residents discharged from aftercare might be abused or neglected.” Complaint ¶ 63, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted)(brackets omitted).
3. A.M.
A court order committed A.M. to Fort Stanton or to another state institution on May 8, 1963, when she was sixteen years old. See Complaint ¶ 66, at 18. By 1967, either through transfer or continuing placement, A.M. was a Fort Stanton resident. See Complaint ¶ 66, at 18. On November 12, 1979, the Defendants transferred A.M. to the Homestead House and “abandoned” her there as part of the aftercare program. Complaint ¶73, at 20. The Homestead'House was a private, unlicensed group shelter for elderly people that Mary Evans (“M.Evans”) owned. See Complaint ¶ 73, at 20. A.M. did not know M. Evans before she was transferred to the Homestead House. See Complaint ¶ 73, at 20. The DOH Defendants’ and the Individual DOH Defendants’ transfer of A.M. from Fort Stanton to the Homestead House “was without legal authority.” Complaint .¶ 78, at 20. A.M. was still in the DOH Defendants’ and Individual DOH Defendants’ legal custody after she was placed- with M. Evans at the Homestead House. See Complaint 1112, at 5.
The Defendants allege, however, that A.M. was transferred to the Homestead House “pursuant to State District Court Order No. 1/387-388 filed on October 17, 1979 in Case No. CV-SQ-0095-79, Twelfth Judicial District, County of Lincoln” (“Oet.17, 1979, Order”). MTD 1 at 2. The Oct. 17, 1979, Order reads, in pertinent part:
1. Respondent has a developmental disability which is so greatly disabling that residential habilitation is in her best interest;
2. Respondent’s habilitation at Fort Stanton' Hospital and Training School is not consistent with the least drastic means principle as respondent could benefit from a less restrictive setting such as a community based group home;
3.Placement in a community based program for persons with develop- • mental disabilities is not presently available for respondent.
IT IS ORDERED
That respondent be and hereby is committed to Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School for residential habilitation for a period not to exceed six months;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
That during the period of extended residential habilitation petitioner shall make application to less restrictive programs on behalf of respondent and shall make every effort to transfer respondent to a less restrictive setting. At the expiration of this order petitioner shall report to this Court concerning its progress toward releasing respondent if further confinement at Fort Stanton Hospital is sought.
Oct. 17,1979, Order,
Neither the .Homestead House nor M. Evans was a licensed service provider for people with developmental disabilities. See Complaint ¶ 73, at 20. Neither M. Evans nor any Homestead House employee had the necessary training or experience to properly care for A.M., and M. Evans had no legal right to hold A.M. See Complaint ¶¶ 76, 78, at 20.
A.M. lived with M. Evans for over thirty years. See Complaint ¶85, at 23. Although the Defendants retained legal control over , A.M. after placing her at the Homestead House, neither the Defendants nor any of their agents checked on A.M. in any fashion. See Complaint ¶¶'77, at 21; id'. ¶80, at 22. Instead, the Defendants “cloak[ed] the Homestead House and M. Evans with untoward authority and absolute control over Plaintiff, who was entirely dependent on this third-party placement for her day-to-day existence.” Complaint ¶ 77, at 21.
At the Homestead House, A.M. was “put to work.” Complaint ¶ 93, at 24-25 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although A.M-. performed housekeeping and other services at the Homestead House, M. Evans never compensated A.M. for her work. See Complaint ¶ 93, at 24-25. M. Evans threatened A.M. if she did not work, emotionally .abused A.M., and neglected her medical needs. See Complaint ¶ 91, at 24; id. ¶ 96, at 25. While in M. Evans’ custody, A.M.' did not receive social services; Medicaid and social security benefits; adequate medical, dental and psychological care; rehabilitative, educational and vocational services; • or day habilitation and therapy. See Complaint ¶ 85, at 23. M. Evans stole AJVL’s social security checks for her own use and did not spend the funds for A.M.’s benefit. See Complaint ¶ 94, at 25. The Defendants facilitated the transfer of A.M.’s social security checks to M. Evans with deliberate indifference to whether M. Evans was using or intended to use the social security funds for A.M.’s benefit. See Complaint ¶ 83, at 22. The Individual DOH Defendants “were aware that M. Evans intended to keep” A.M.’s federal benefits, “and force her to work in return for a place to live, and approved the arrangement.” Complaint ¶ 95, at 25. While at the Homestead House, A.M. was socially isolated and rarely allowed to leave. See Complaint ¶ 87, at 23.
The DOH transferred J.P., another developmentally disabled woman, to the Homestead House on the same day as A.M.’s transfer. See Complaint ¶ 88, at 24. While at the Homestead House, J.P. attempted to leave to find her children, from whom she had been separated. See Complaint' ¶ 88, at 24. J.P. climbed over the wall and wandered the streets calling out for her children, and eventually either returned or was brought back to the Homestead House. See Complaint ¶ 88, at 24. After this incident, -Evans took J.P.’s shoes and planted cacti at the place where J.P. had climbed the wall to prevent her from escaping. See Complaint ¶ 88, at 24. J.P. continued to try to escape. See Complaint ¶ 88, at 24. At one point, J.P, jumped over the wall and landed in the cactus. See Complaint ¶ 88, at 24. Through punishing J.P. for escaping, M. Evans made it clear to A.M. that she. could prevent A.M. from leaving the Homestead House. See Complaint ¶ 88, at 24.
The State eventually shut down the Homestead House. See Complaint ¶ 97, at 24. When that occurred, A.M. was transferred to M. Evans’ private residence— also an unlicensed group shelter. See Complaint ¶98, at 25. A.M.’s transfer from the Homestead House was without either A.M.’s consent or, most likely, judicial authority. See Complaint ¶ 98, at 25-26. If judicial authority was obtained for A.M.’s transfer, “the presiding judge was misled by DOH Defendants and the individual Defendants concerning the circumstances of Plaintiffs removal to M. Evans’ private residence.” Complaint ¶ 98, at 26.
In October, 1999, APS investigated allegations that M. Evans was physically neglecting A.M. See Complaint ¶ 99, at 26. APS found the allegations unsubstantiated. See Complaint ¶ 99, at 26. APS did not determine, however, whether M. Evans was .paying A.M. for her labor, whether M. Evans was properly accounting for A.M.’s federal benefits, why A.M. was not receiving any therapeutic services or medical or dental care, or why A.M. was kept isolated without any opportunity to socialize with others. See Complaint ¶ 99, at 26. APS’ investigation consisted solely of interviews with M. Evans and/or other non-disabled persons, “rather than engaging in any meaningful conversation with [A.M.] concerning her condition or circumstances.” Complaint ¶ 99, at 26.
In or about October, 2004, APS received allegations that M. Evans and John Evans — M. " Evans’ husband — were physically abusing and exploiting A.M. See Complaint ¶ 100, at 26. APS received a report that M. Evans and J. Evans “were taking Plaintiffs social security money but were not caring for her, and that Plaintiff was emotionally abused.” Complaint ¶ 100, at 26. The ¡reports also alleged that the Ev-anses- were abusing J.P. See Complaint ¶ 100, at 26, APS concluded that the Ev-anses had emotionally abused A.M., -and stated that its. report would be forwarded to the DOH and to law enforcement. See Complaint ¶ 100, at 26. -The case ' remained open for eighteen months, but was ultimately closed as unsubstantiated, because APS found the report to be “malicious.” Complaint ¶ 101, at 26-27. Again, APS did not engage in any meaningful conversation with A.M. before it closed its investigation. See Complaint ¶ 101, at 27.
In 2006 or 2007, “the Governor’s investigation]; identified AM and JP as two of the former Training School resident [sic] who had been illegally discharged from the Training School.” Complaint ¶ 102, at 27. In March, 2008, “more than four years after DOH learned of the plight of former Training School residents, the DOH investigated Plaintiffs circumstances” as part of the Governor’s investigation. Complaint ¶ 106, at 28. - The DOH- limited its investigation, however, to an interview of M. Evans — it did not take into account the prior allegations of abuse, interview A.M., or conduct an independent investigation of A.M.’s circumstances. - See Complaint ¶ 106, at 28. That same mónth, APS in Grant County, New Mexico, also investigated A.M.’s circumstances after a caseworker at Fort Baynard reported that M. Evans was physically and emotionally abusing A.M. See Complaint ¶ 106, at 28. APS acknowledged that: (i) A.M. was developmentally disabled; (ii) A.M. had expressed fear of M. Evans; (iii) a psychiatrist had recommended that a guardian be appointed for A.M.; (iv) M. Evans’ residence was an unlicensed facility; (v) A.M. had not seen a primary care physician in at least five years; and (vi) M. Evans never applied for disability benefits for A.M. See Complaint ¶ 108, at 28. Nonetheless, APS found the report unsubstantiated, declined to pursue a guardianship for A.M., and closed the report. See Complaint ¶ 108, at 28. The DOH did not, as part of its investigation, engage in meaningful conversation with A.M. concerning her condition or circumstances. See .Complaint ¶ 108, at 28.
In December, 2008, the DOH began a new investigation or re-opened its prior investigation into A.M.’s circumstances. See Complaint ¶ 110, at 29. The DOH referred to M. Evans as A.M.’s “guardian,” despite clear indications in A.M.’s file that M. Evans was never appointed her guardian. Complaint ¶ 110, at 29. The DOH continued to “interact exclusively or primarily with M.. Evans” during its investigation. Complaint ¶ 110, at 29. The DOH did not consider the prior allegations of abuse, interview A.M., or independently investigate A.M.’s circumstances. See Complaint ¶ 110, at 29. The DOH’s policy and practice of deferring to caregivers rather than interacting with the disabled individuals themselves or otherwise independently investigating aftercare residents’ circumstances continued into 2009. See Complaint ¶ 110, at 29.
In June, 2009, Tom Roach, an ALTSD employee, prepared a report - for the ALTSD and the DOH regarding A.M. and J.P. See Complaint ¶ 111, at 29. Roach stated that M. Evans was managing A.M.’s and J.P.’s care in exchange for payments for room and board. See Complaint ¶ 111, at 29-30. Roach stated that M. Evans had legal authority to make decisions for A.M. Nee Complaint ¶ 111, at 30. Roach reported that A.M. was “happy in her home” and was “getting all the care she needs from Ms. Evans.” Complaint ¶ 111, at 30 (internal quotation marks omitted). He also noted that “one recent APS referral for exploitation (04/06) was found to be malicious and unsubstantiated.” Complaint ¶ 111, at 30 (internal quotation marks omitted). Roach limited his investigation to an interview of M. Evans — he did not take into account prior allegations of abuse, interview A.M. or J.P., or independently investigate J,P.’s or A.M.’s circumstances. See Complaint ¶ 112, at 30. The State Agency Defendants “did nothing to assist AM or JP.” Complaint ¶ 113, at 30. The State Agency Defendants never sought a guardian, conservator, or representative payee for A.M., nor arranged for her to receive therapeutic services. See Complaint ¶ 113, at 30.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.M. filed her original complaint in state court on June 13, 2013, see Original Complaint for Damages, filed June 13, 2013 in the state court, filed July 26, 2013 in the federal district court (Doc. 2), and an amended complaint on June 14, 2013, see Complaint at 1. The DOH Defendants and the Individual DOH Defendants removed the case to federal court on July 26, 2013. See Notice of Removal, filed June 26, 2013 (Doc. l~2)(“Notice of Removal”). A.M. alleges seven claims in her Complaint: (i) a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against the Individual DOH Defendants for violating her substantive and procedural due-process rights, Complaint ¶¶126-40, at 32-36; (ii) a claim under the First Amendment against the Individual DOH Defendants for violating her rights to freedom of association and court, access, see Complaint ¶¶ 141-48, at 36-37; (iii) a claim under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America against the Individual DOH Defendants for violating her right to be free from unlawful seizures, see Complaint ¶¶ 149-155, at 37-28; (iv) a claim under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America against the Individual DOH Defendants for violating her right to be free from involuntary servitude, see Complaint ¶¶ 156-64, at 38-39; (v) a claim against the DOH Defendants for violating § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, see Complaint ¶¶ 165-71, at 49-40; (vi) a claim against the DOH Defendants for violating the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396-1396p, see Complaint ¶¶ 172-80, at 41-43; and (vii) claims against the ALTSD and the APS for violating § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34 (“ADA”), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 28 C.F.R. Ch. 1, pt. 35, Complaint ¶¶ 181-87, at 43-45.
Regarding AM.’s claim that the Individual DOH Defendants violated her right to court access under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, A.M contends that she has and had a constitutionally protected liberty interest to have her views and interests regarding placement, and the violation of her fundamental rights while confined, redressed in court. See Complaint ¶ 128, at 32-33. With respect to the Fourteenth Amendment, A.M. contends:
As a person with developmental disabilities who was involuntarily deprived of her liberties and placed' in the custody and control of the State, Plaintiff has a right to adequate, effective and meaningful access to the judicial system to litigate violations of her fundamental constitutional rights.' The right of access to the judicial system imposes affirmative. obligations upon the Individual DOH Defendants to ensure that committed persons with severe developmental disabilities like Plaintiff' may effectively exercise this right.
The individual Defendants did not obtain, nor take steps to enable Plaintiff to obtain, the appointment of guardians, guardians ad litem, conservators or attorneys who could serve and protect the interests of Plaintiff and thereby denied her access 'to the judicial" system. Thus Plaintiff was deprived' of any effective mechanism' by which she could challenge the legality of conditions of her placement and services.
Complaint ,¶¶ 135-36, at 34-35. Moreover, A.M. asserts that, as a proximate result of the Individual DOH Defendants’ failure to provide' A.M. with any of the “services, rights and protections to which she is and was entitled” under the Fourteenth Amendment, she suffered significant damages for which she seeks a remedy. Complaint ¶ 138, at 35.
With respect to A.M.’s court access claim under the First Amendment, she contends that the Individual DOH Defendants violated her right to seek redress of her grievances by the government when she was denied an opportunity to object to the illegal transfer either “through channels or in court.” Complaint ¶ 145, at 36. A.M. asserts that, “as a proximate result of the Individual DOH Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs clearly established First Amendment rights, she has suffered significant damages, for which she seeks damages against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities.” Complaint ¶ 146, at 36. - A.M. further asserts that the Individual DOH Defendants “knowingly, intentionally deliberately recklessly, maliciously and wrongly” violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments such that punitive damages should be awarded for punishment and deterrence. Complaint ¶ 139, at 35 and ¶ 147, at 36.
1. The MTD.
The Individual DOH Defendants filed the MTD on May 23, 2014. . See MTD at 1. In the MTD, the Individual DOH Defendants ask the Court to dismiss A.M.’s court access claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments on the basis of qualified immunity. See MTD at 1.
The Individual DOH Defendants point out that qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for civil damages if they violate a plaintiffs federally protected right, “so long as the state officials did not violate clearly established law.” MTD at 2 (citations omitted). The Individual'DOH Defendants cite to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Gomes v. Wood, 451 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir.2006), in support of their qualified immunity argument. See MTD at 3. According to the Individual DOH Defendants, Gomes v. Wood established that “[t]he law is clearly established if a reasonable official in the defendant’s circumstances would understand that her conduct violated the plaintiffs constitutional right.... If the law is not clearly established, we do not require officials to anticipate its future developments.” MTD at 3 (quoting Gomes v. Wood, 451 F.3d at 1134)(internal quotation marks omitted). The Individual DOH Defendants contend that a law is clearly established if there is a Supreme Court of the United States of America or Tenth Circuit decision on point, “or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts sufficiently defines the right.” MTD at 4 (citing Farmer v. Pemil, 288 F.3d 1254, 1259 (10th Cir.2002)). Further, the Individual DOH- Defendants assert that it is A.M.’s burden to point to Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent to establish that the Individual DOH Defendants violated clearly established law that is “indisputable” and “unquestioned.” MTD at 4 (quoting Zweibon v. Mitchell, 720 F.2d 162, 172 (D.C.Cir.1983))(internal quotation marks excluded)(citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)).
The Individual DOH Defendants argue that, to maintain a First Amendment court access claim, there must be actual injury. See MTD at 6 (citing Ali v. District of Columbia, 278 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C.Cir.2002)). The Individual DOH Defendants note that actual injury means an actionable claim that was lost or rejected, or the presentation of which is currently being prevented. See MTD at 6 (citing Ali v. District of Columbia, 278 F.3d at 8). They contend that the Supreme Court has held that a claim for a denial of 'access may be brought in two circumstances: (i) where systematic official action “frustrates a plaintiff in preparing and filing suits, such as denial of access to a law library;” or (ii) where official action precludes a claim “resulting in the loss or inadequate settlement of a meritorious case or the loss of the opportunity to bring suit.” MTD at 6 (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-14, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002)). The Individual DOH Defendants state that the Tenth Circuit has characterized actual injury as a showing that any denial or delay of access to court prejudiced the plaintiff in pursuing litigation. See MTD at 6 (citing Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1226 (10th Cir.2006)).
The Individual DOH Defendants maintain that the cases cited in Plaintiffs Response to the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion .to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amendment and Fourth Amendment Claims on the Basis of. Qualified Immunity (Doc. 37) are not First Amendment cases. See MTD. at 6. The Individual DOH Defendants assert that Ward v. Kort, 762 F.2d 856 (10th Cir.1985), and Silver v. Cormier, 529 F.2d 161 (10th Cir.1976), are Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment cases. The Individual DOH Defendants contend that none of the cases which A.M. cites in her Response are pertinent to First Amendment analysis and that it remains A.M.’s burden to identify binding precedent establishing a right to court access under the First Amendment in 1979. See MTD at 7.- In sum, the Individual DOH Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not shown that there was a clearly established First Amendment right to court access in 1979 when A.M. was allegedly discharged: See MTD at 7.
The Individual DOH Defendants also assert they are entitled to qualified immunity on A.M.’s court access claim brought under the Fourteenth Amendment. See MTD at 7. The Individual DOH Defendants contend that A.M. had “no clearly established, constitutionally protected, property interest in court access at the time of her alleged discharge and/or placement with M. Evans at the Homestead House in 1979.” MTD at 7. The Individual DOH Defendants argue that an “access to the courts” claim under the Fourteenth Amendment remained undecided until 2002 in the Supreme Court and 2004 in the Tenth Circuit. MTD at 8 (relying on Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199, 1208-09 (10th Cir.2004) and Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-14, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002)). The Individual DOH Defendants therefore assert that, at the time of A.M.’s alleged discharge and/or placement with M. Evans at the Homestead House in 1979, there was no clearly established right of access to the courts. See MTD at 8.
The Individual' DOH Defendants contend that the circumstances under which a plaintiff can succeed on' such, a claim are limited, assuming that a court access right exists. See MTD at 8. According to the Individual DOH Defendants, the Tenth Circuit adopted the two categories of court access' claims' that the Supreme Court created in Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002): (i) “forward looking claims,” in which “official action frustrates a plaintiff’s ability to-bring suit at the present time,” and (ii) “backwards looking claims,” in which a plaintiff “alleges that a specific claim cannot be' tried because past official action caused the loss or inadequate settlement of a meritorious case.” MTD at 8 (citing Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d at 1208). The Individual DOH Defendants argue that Á!M.’s court access claims are neither forward nor backward looking, and therefore do not fit into either category that the Tenth Circuit established. See, MTD at 8. According to the Individual DOH Defendants, classic “backwards looking claims” include denials of law library privileges to prisoners. MTD at 9. They maintain that an element of any “backwards looking claim” requires the plaintiff “to identify a remedy that would not otherwise be available in a lawsuit that could be brought.” MTD at 9 (citing Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d at 1209). The Individual DOH Defendants assert that A.M. has not alleged any remedies that are not otherwise available through other claims, brought in this lawsuit. See MTD at 9. According to the Individual DOH Defendants, litigating facts constituting denial of access would be a waste of time and money, because A.M. could end up “just as well off” by litigating a “simpler” case. MTD at 9. The Individual DOH Defendants contend that A.M. ignored the actual-damages requirement, and that, even assuming a court access claim under the Fourteenth Amendment exists, A.M. cannot overcome qualified immunity • “based only on the existence of such a right [and] without allegations of actual damages.” MTD at 9.
The Individual DOH Defendants next argue that the cases A.M. cites in her Response to the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amendment and Fourth Amendment Claims on the Basis of Qualified Immunity, filed May 9, 2014 (Doc. 37), involve either a prisoner’s right of access to courts while incarcerated, or are not analogous to the facts alleged in this case. See MTD at 9-10. Further, the Individual DOH Defendants assert that the cases on which A.M. relies involve court access rights that were allegedly violated either “during confinement or during proceedings to involuntary confine the plaintiff.” MTD at 11. The Individual DOH Defendants argue that, even if a right to court access had been clearly established in 1979, “decisions involving court access during or preceding a transfer would not have placed a reasonable official on notice as to court access rights upon release from confinement.” MTD at 11 (emphasis in original). The Individual DOH Defendants conclude that the lack of a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right of access to the courts upon release from a state institution in 1979 and A.M.’s failure to allege actual injury entitle them to qualified immunity. See MTD at 11. The Individual DOH Defendants, therefore, request that the Court dismiss with prejudice A.M.’s court access claims brought under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See MTD at 11-12.
2. The Response.
A.M. filed her response to the MTD on June 18, 2014. See Plaintiffs Response to Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss Plaintiffs Court Access Claims Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, filed June 18, 2014 (Doc. 52)(“Response”). In her Response, A.M. argues that the Individual DOH Defendants failed to obtain informed consent when they placed and abandoned A.M. at a third-party location. See Response at 8. A.M. further asserts that the Individual DOH Defendants never filed a motion to terminate A.M.’s “involuntary commitment” to the Training School in the state court that committed her to its custody, which denied A.M.’s access to court. See Response at 8. A.M. contends that she was deprived of the assistance of guardians, a guardian ad litem, a conservator, an attorney, or any other competent adult to assist her in the initiation of any court actions regarding her wrongful placement in an unfamiliar locality, or the “neglect and exploitation inflicted upon her in Silver City.” Response at 8. A.M. also asserts that she was deprived of assistance with managing her affairs while she was institutionalized, when being transferred to community placement, and after being placed there as a result of the Individual DOH Defendants’ decisions to “not seek appointment of a guardian, guardian ad litem, conservator, or attorney.” Response at 8. Finally, A.M. states that her “neglect and exploitation” in Silver City caused her serious medical and emotional harm, in addition to economic exploitation. Response at 8.
A.M. next contends that it is undisputed that she was denied any opportunity for court access to challenge her alleged discharge. See Response at 8. According to A.M., the Individual DOH Defendants did not seek judicial authority for A.M.’s final discharge, thus denying her right of access to the courts. See Response at 8 (citing Ward v. Kort, 762 F.2d 856, 858 (10th Cir.1985)). A.M. asserts that in, Ward v. Kort, the court could discern “no logic in holding that persons under mental commitments [¶]... ] are on a lower plane than convicted inmates and are not entitled to protection of the basic constitutional guarantee of access to the courts.” Response at 9 (quoting Ward v. Kort, 762 F.2d at 858). A.M. contends that the court access right of a person who is “civilly confined” helps ensure they are appropriately transitioned to community placement and guarantees judicial oversight of the person’s future circumstances. Response at 9. According to A.M., this right of access to courts for civilly confined persons arises from analogous convicted prisoner cases that the Supreme Court decided- in 1977 and the Tenth Circuit decided in 1976. See Response at 9 (citing Ward v. Kort, 762 F.2d at 858). Thus, A.M. argues that the Individual DOH Defendants cannot maintain that, at the time of A.M.’s purported discharge from the Training School on November 12, 1979, “the law was not clearly established that [A.M.] was entitled to access to the courts.” Response,at 9-10.
In response to the Individual DOH Defendant’s argument that A.M.’s reliance on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment cases is fatal to her First Amendment court access claim, A.M. identifies three problems. See Response at 10. First, A.M. argues that her purported final discharge from Fort Stanton and her subsequent transfer to a private business, “for use as free labor” without the consultation of a court, “clearly blocked Plaintiffs ability to seek redress from the government,” regardless whether the same egregious facts had ever been presented to a federal court in the Tenth Circuit.. Response at 10. A.M. contends that the Individual DOH Defendants knew that A.M. was developmental^ disabled, and had represented to the committing court and to the Twelfth Judicial District Court “that she could not even function independently outside the institution.” Response at 10. A.M. maintains that the Individual DOH Defendants proceeded to send A.M. to a boarding home for the elderly where she was “put to work,” contrary to the Twelfth Judicial District Court’s specific instructions to send A.M. to a community placement for developmentally disabled adults. Response at 10. A.M. asserts that the Individual DOH Defendants failed to seek a judicial order from the committing court or the Twelfth Judicial District Court authorizing her discharge from the Training School. See Response at 10. A.M. argues that the reasonable inference from these facts, and from the administration of the aftercare program in general, is that the Individual DOH Defendants intentionally blocked A.M.’s access to the courts and to an advocate. See Response at 10. A.M. concludes that state actors were “prohibited from deliberately blocking a citizen’s access to the judicial process” in 1979 and that the lack of a fully analogous 1970’s First Amendment case is not fatal to her court access claims. Response at 11.
Second, A.M. asserts that the right of civilly ' confined persons’ court access “traces back to the 1970s at the latest” and that, “to be clear, the violations of [her] First and Fourteenth Amendment rights continued past the 1970s at the latest.” Response at 11. A.M. emphasizes that she does not claim that the State’s custody ended with A.M.’s discharge in 1979, nor that the constitutional violations began and ended in 1979, See Response at 11. A.M. instead argues that the Individual DOH Defendants’ conduct should be viewed according to the timing set forth in A.M'.’s allegations. See Response at 11 (citing Moore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036, 1039 (10th Cir.2006)). According to A.M., her right of court access claims are included in the First and Second Causes of Action, as well as in the preceding factual paragraphs, where she clearly states that she was never properly discharged and that her alleged discharge is a fiction. See Response at 12 (citing Complaint, ¶¶ 126, 141). 'A.M. states that, because all nonjudicial discharges and ex parte purported discharges are ineffective, A.M. remained in the custody of the Individual DOH Defendants during her placement with Homestead House and presently with her current placement. See Response at 12. A.M. asserts that, because she has remained in the Individual DOH Defendants’ custody, they were responsible for her when she was at the Homestead House up to and after A.M. sued the Individual DOH Defendants in 2013. See Response at 12. Moreover, according to A.M., the ongoing violations of A.M.’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights continued until each Individual DOH Defendant left his or her employment with the State. See Response at 12.
Finally, A.M. does not agree with the Individual DOH Defendants that her court access right was not clearly established in 1979. See Response at ■ 12. A.M. contends, that in the 1970s, it was clearly established law “that the State could not involuntarily deny its citizens — even its developmentally disabled citizens — their Fourteenth Amendment right of .access to the court.” Response at 13. A.M. adds that, -with respect to the cases providing a Fifth Amendment right of court access, the right is incorporated into the Fourteenth, Amendment. See Response at 13. A.M. concludes that she should be permitted ■ to, litigate her court access claims as part of her First Cause of Action. See Response at 13.
. A.M. next defines right of access to the legal system as requiring meaningful access, and explains that meaningful access for her required periodic judicial reviews and the appointment of a legal guardian. See Response at 13. A.M. contends that, as a result of receiving no access or insufficient access to court, she did not receive judicial review of her involuntary civil commitment. See Response at 13. A.M. argues that it has been clearly established since 1972 that “civil commitments must serve a particular and legitimate purpose and cannot simply subject people to indefinite periods of commitment.” Response at 13. A.M. cites to Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972), where the Supreme Court invalidated a state statute allowing criminal defendants incompetent to stand trial to be committed indefinitely. See Response at 13. According to A.M., in that case, the Supreme Court found that the indefinite commitment violated due process, holding that a person can be held no more than a “reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain the capacity to stand trial in the future,” and that due process “requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some relation to the purpose for which the' individual is committed.” Response at 13 (quoting Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. at 738, 92 S.Ct. 1845)(internal quotations omitted). As further support, A.M. relies on two cases: (i) O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975), in which the Supreme Court held that an individual who poses no danger to the community or himself cannot be held by the state based only on his or her mental illness; and (ii) Clark v. Cohen, 613 F.Supp. 684 (E.D.Pa.1985)(Huyett, J.), aff'd, 794 F.2d 79, 86 (3rd Cir.1986), in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that a plaintiff’s “procedural due process rights were violated when she was held in a training school for people with developmental disabilities.” Response at 14.
A.M. asserts that meaningful access, by definition, includes access to “practical assistance” in petitioning the court, and goes beyond merely informing the committing court or informing the subject of proceedings. See Response at 14. A.M. cites to Heryford v. Parker, 396 F.2d 393, 396 (10th Cir.1968), which involved a mentally deficient minor who was committed to a state training school, and who was denied his rights to counsel and confrontation. See Response at 15. According to A.M., the Tenth Circuit held that “Fourteenth Amendment due process requires that the infirm person, or one acting in his behalf, be fully advised of his rights and accorded each of them unless knowingly and understandingly waived.” Response at 15 (quoting Heryford v. Parker, 396 F.2d at 396). A.M. contends that she was deprived of counsel to represent her interests in proceedings to permanently transfer her from the Training School to another setting. See Response at 15-16. A.M. argues that her cognitive impairments prevented her from independently seeking judicial redress, either in the Training School or within the third-party placement, and that she could not contest the conditions of her confinement. See Response at 16. A.M. asserts that the Individual DOH Defendants failed to arrange for counsel or any other assistance, which prevented her from asserting her interests regarding her civil commitment, her confinement conditions, and her placement in a third-party setting. See Response at 16.
As support for her argument, A.M. alleges that the right to assistance to access judicial authorities in the civil context “is not limited to persons detained by the State.” Response at 16. A.M. points to Boddie v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court signaled that civil parties are entitled to the State’s assistance when seeking judicial remedies, holding that “a state could not deny the opportunity to secure a'divorce to individuals who were unable to initiate a divorce proceeding.” Response at 16 (citing Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971)). A.M. notes that the standard to determine whether a state is fulfilling its duty to afford court access is “whether the method it has chosen provides meaningful áceess to the courts.” Response at 16. A.M. argues that she never received assistance in accessing the court, that the committing court was never informed of what was occurring, and, thus, that the Individual DOH Defendants violated her clearly established First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Response at 16-17.
Finally, A.M. asserts that her right of court access required the state to affirmatively assist her with any and all claims implicating violations of her constitutional rights. See Response at 17. A.M. contends that her right to .court access required the Individual DOH .Defendants to appoint someone who could assist her in challenging her placement, confinement conditions, and .her medical treatment and services, or lack thereof. See Response at 17. A.M. cites to Ahern v. Veterans Administration, 537 F.2d 1098, 1101 (10th Cir.1976), in which the Tenth Circuit held that a patient must give informed consent to any medical treatment. See Response at 17 (citing Ahern v. Veterans Admin., 537 F.2d at 1101). A.M. also cites to Woods v. Brumlop, 1962-NMSC-133, ¶ 25, 71 N.M. 221, 377 P.2d 520, 524, where the Supreme Court of New .Mexico articulated the same rule. See Response at 17. A.M. argues that the Individual DOH Defendants’ involuntary transportation of A.M. to a different city, with her subsequent loss of treatment and services provided at the Training School, occurred without anyone’s informed consent in violation of her court access right. See Response at 17.
3. The Reply.
The Individual DOH Defendants filed their reply to the Response on July 14, 2014. See Reply Supporting Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss Plaintiffs Court Access Claims Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments on the Basis of Qualified Immunity, filed May 20, 2014 (Doc. 54)(“Re-ply”). The Individual DOH Defendants contend that A.M. fails to cite to a case in her Response that establishes a First Amendment court access right at the time of the alleged conduct and that, accordingly, the Individual DOH Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Reply at 1. The Individual DOH Defendants next assert that the right to court access under the Fourteenth Amendment was not recognized at the time of the challenged conduct or after. See Reply at 2. The Individual DOH Defendants state that the cases A.M. cites in her Response do not involve analogous factual situations, involving a court access right upon discharge, “as opposed to a right of court access upon involuntary or continued confinement.” Reply at 2. Moreover, the Individual DOH Defendants argue that A.M. fails to state a court access claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, because she does not allege the inability to file suit or the loss of a claim, as required to bring a court access claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Reply at 2,
The Individual DOH Defendants first elaborate on their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to A.M.’s First Amendment court access claim. See Reply at 2. They assert that A.M. does not clearly address their argument that there must be a First Amendment case establishing the right to court access. See Reply at 2. The Individual DOH Defendants assert that A.M. instead relies on Fourteenth Amendment due-process cases and other “non-First Amendment cases” in her Response. Reply at 3. The Individual DOH Defendants argue that the MTD distinguishes the majority of A.M.’s “non-First Amendment” cases, and that the rest are factually distinguishable. See Reply at 3. According to the Individual DOH Defendants, A.M. cites to Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. 1 Wall. 223, 17 L.Ed. 531 (1863), which involved the question “whether the insolvency laws of one state could discharge the contracts of citizens of other states absent notice,” and to Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 275, 23 L.Ed. 914 (1976), where the Supreme Court held that a Confederate Army officer was not allowed to defend himself in a confiscation action. Reply at 3. Further, the Individual DOH Defendants state that Ahern v. Veterans Administration, 537 F.2d 1098, was a medical malpractice case. See Reply at 3. The Individual DOH Defendants assert that none of the cases cited in A.M.’s Response are First Amendment cases and that they do not support A.M.’s claim, because they either involve a prisoner’s court access right while incarcerated or are not factually analogous to A.M,’s present case. See Reply at 3. In conclusion, the Individual DOH Defendants argue that A.M. failed to meet her burden of pointing to a First Amendment case that establishes a court access right by 1979 and that the Individual DOH Defendants are thus entitled to qualified immunity on any First Amendment court access claims. See Reply at 3.
The Individual DOH Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on A.M,’s Fourteenth Amendment'court access claim. See Reply at 3. They contend that A.M.’s reliance on cases that were decided after the alleged conduct occurred is misplaced, and point to Jennings v. City of Stillwater and Christopher v. Harbury to support their argument that a right to court access under the Fourteenth Amendment remained undecided in the Supreme Court until 2002 and in the Tenth Circuit until 2004. See Reply at 4 (citing Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d at 1208-09, and Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-14, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002)). The Individual DOH Defendants explain that these cases discuss the existence of a court access right under the Fourteenth-Amendment, without endorsing the validity of such a right. See Reply at 4. The Individual DOH Defendants contend- that A.M. fails to acknowledge Jennings v. City of Stillwater and in Christopher v. Harbury, but instead cites to the same cases that the MTD distinguished. See Reply at 4. The Individual DOH Defendants argue that the cases A.M. cites do not involve issues of court access, and that the ones which do “address only whether a right to court access was violated either during confinement or during proceedings to confine a plaintiff.” Reply at 4 (emphasis in original). The Individual DOH Defendants argue that, at the time of A.M.’s discharge, the decisions involving court access and confinement would not have placed a reasonable officer on notice that their conduct was unconstitutional. See Reply at 5. According to. the Individual DOH Defendants, at the time of discharge, there were no statutory or other requirements under New Mexico law “to petition the court with regard to [A.M.’s] discharge.” Reply at 5. The Individual DOH Defendants conclude that A.M. fails to satisfy her burden in showing that a court access right “in the context of a discharge from confinement” was clearly established in 1979 and that the Individual DOH Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to A