Citations
- 165 F. Supp. 3d 996
Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MARTHA VÁZQUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum in Support to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Procedural Due Process Claims on the Basis of Qualified Immunity (“Motion to Dismiss Procedural Due Process Claims”), [Doc. 267], 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 (“Motion to Dismiss Court Access Claims”), [Doc. 275], the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Claim on the Basis of Qualified Immunity and Supporting Memorandum (“Motion to Dismiss First Amendment Claim”), [Doc. 213], and the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Claim on the Basis of Qualified Immunity and Supporting Memorandum (“Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amendment Claim”), [Doc. 212], The Court, having considered the motions, briefs, and relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that the Motion to Dismiss Procedural Due Process Claims is granted in part and denied in part, the Motion to Dismiss Court Access Claims is granted, the Motion to Dismiss First Amendment Claim is granted, and the Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amendment Claim is denied.
BACKGROUND
In their First Amended Complaint (“complaint”), [Doc. 102], Plaintiffs JL, EH, RH, DA, KC, and GS assert claims against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process, First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of intimate association, First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to access of courts, and Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Defendants’ alleged unilateral decisions temporarily to transfer Plaintiffs JL, EH, RH, DA, and KC from State of New Mexico institutions housing people with developmental disabilities to various privately-run third-party settings, permanently to discharge Plaintiffs from the Los Lunas Hospital and Training School and the Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School (collectively, the “Training School”), and post-discharge to transport Plaintiffs JL, EH, DA, KC, and GS across the state for placement in private, third-party settings. Defendants effectuated the transfers and placements without notice to Plaintiffs, without obtaining informed consent, and either without judicial process or without notice and an opportunity to be heard in that process. Defendants discharged Plaintiffs from the Training School without informing them of their discharges or that Defendants purported to sever the states’ custodial relationship with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege the following facts in support of their claims.
I. Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are former residents of the Training School. [Doc. 102 ¶ 1], At the time of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims, the New Mexico Department of Health operated the Training School. [Id. ¶ 18].
Plaintiffs are developmental^ disabled adults who are and were at the time of their placements at the Training School incapacitated due to their developmental disabilities. [Id. ¶ 367]. Because of their disabilities, Plaintiffs were unaware of their constitutional rights. [/<£]. Plaintiffs JL, EH, RH, DA, and KC were admitted by court order to the Training School between 1966 and 1973 pursuant to the 1953 New Mexico Developmental Disabilities Code’s provisions for involuntary commitment. [Id. ¶¶ 1, 12-17], Plaintiff GS was admitted to the Training School in 1973 pursuant to the 1953 code’s provisions for voluntary commitment. [Id. ¶¶ 1, 17].
II. Defendants and ENMRSH.
Defendants were employees of the DOH during the relevant timeframe. [Id. ¶¶ 25, 27, 29, 31]. Beth Schaefer was an attorney for the Training School when Plaintiffs JL, EH, RH, KC, and GS were discharged. [Id. ¶ 25]. “Schaefer directed Training School administrators to discharge residents from aftercare and State custody without due process,” without follow-up, and without appointing surrogate decision makers. [/<£]. Dan Sandoval was an employee of the Training School, and Director of Resident Living between 1979 and 1985 and had responsibility for Plaintiffs when they were discharged. [Id. ¶ 27]. Roger Adams was the Deputy Administrator or Acting Administrator of the Training School, and made the placement and discharge decisions relating to Plaintiffs. [Id. ¶ 29]. Joseph Mateju was the Administrator of the Training School, and made the final placement and discharge decisions relating to Plaintiffs. [Id. ¶ 31]. Sandoval, Adams, and Mateju were members of the Screening Committee on Admissions and Releases (“SCAR”) at the Training School, and Adams and Mateju personally attended most SCAR meetings and personally approved the discharge of Plaintiffs from aftercare. [Id. ¶¶ 27, 29,. 31]. Sandoval, Adams, and Mateju had responsibility for ensuring Plaintiffs’ health, safety, and well-being, for supervising and monitoring Plaintiffs after they were placed outside the Training School, and for determining the suitability of the placements. [Id,.].
ENMRSH is a non-profit corporation that owned, operated, and managed facilities providing residential, community care, and supported employment services to individuals with developmental disabilities in eastern New Mexico. [Id. ¶¶ 3, 7, 36]. ENMRSH receives government funding to provide these services. [Id. ¶ 3]. “ENMRSH, although a private entity, is under state contract to provide services to individuals with disabilities, and ENMRSH acts under color of state law.. [Id. ¶ 436].
III. The Aftercare Program.
Beginning in the 1970’s, Training School administrators began to “farm out” residents from the Training School through the aftercare program. [Id. ¶ 54], Training School policies required periodic visits by Training School personnel and ongoing oversight of aftercare residents, [id. ¶ 59], and required a responsible adult to give consent for placement, [id. ¶ 60]. “Training School social workers were supposed to interview the prospective placement, oversee the placements, visit the people in aftercare and ensure their well-being.” [Id. ¶ 62].
The aftercare program was not operated in a manner consistent with its own policies. [Id. ¶ 59]. Defendants “did not use any system to ensure that residents in aftercare would be safe, or that they would receive minimally adequate services.” [Id.]. Moreover, “placements were routinely implemented without consent by a responsible adult,” [id. ¶ 60], and social workers failed to make required visits and ensure their well-being, [id. ¶ 63]. Regarding this latter failure, Defendants “were aware that the social workers assigned ... did not even visit residents in their community placements,” and that when they did, the social workers relied on second-hand information relayed through telephone calls instead of required first-person contact. [Id]. Defendants “had direct authority to approve ... this departure from policy and affirmatively acquiesced in the social workers’ failure to follow policy.” [Id.]. The Training School did not have “any guidelines on how residents in aftercare placements would be cared for,” did not have a “system to follow up with these residents,” and did not have “a system to allow the Training School to know what the condition of the residents was[] and what services they needed.” [Id. ¶ 65], Defendants “were well aware of the dangers residents faced due to the way the aftercare program was operated, but they proceeded anyway.” [Id. ¶ 68]. '
The complaint alleges that Defendants placed all Plaintiffs, with the exception of GS, on aftercare. [Id. ¶¶ 12-15, 133-34, 192, 203, 298-99]. After placing Plaintiffs ,on aftercare, Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with any periodic judicial review to determine whether their placements were appropriate and their needs were being addressed. [Id. ¶ 92]. Instead, Defendants “abandoned Plaintiffs” without ensuring their needs were met and without providing protections against abuse, neglect, or exploitation. [Id. ¶ 6]. Moreover, Defendants conducted Plaintiffs’ aftercare placements without obtaining informed consent and without the appointment of guardians or substitute decision makers. [Id.]. Defendants did not give Plaintiffs a choice regarding their aftercare placements. [Id. ¶2]. In addition, Defendants placed Plaintiffs in these third-party settings without permission from the courts that had involuntarily committed them. [Id. ¶ 6].
IV. Discharge from the Training School and Post-Discharge Placement at ENMRSH.
“The well-known failure by social workers to provide oversight for residents on aftercare led ... Defendants ... to decide to discharge residents from aftercare.” [Id. ¶ 69]. “Schaefer was in charge of changes in discharge procedures,” [id. ¶ 71], and “advised administrators that the state institutions’ custody of people committed to the institution by court order automatically lapsed on the [July 1, 1977,] effective date of the New Mexico Mental Health Code ... despite extant judicial orders of commitment for an indeterminate period,” [id. ¶72]. “Schaefer concluded and directed administrators that a change in the Code meant that the court orders committing residents on aftercare to State custody had become void, regardless whether their original placement off the physical grounds of the Training School had been planned or judicially reviewed, or was even legal.” [Id.]. “[Schaefer] did not conduct legal research, but nonetheless opined and directed Training School administrators that the Training School no longer had any legal responsibility for any residents on aftercare as of the Code’s effective date of July 1, 1977.” [Id.]. “Schaefer began directing that all residents of the Training School who were on aftercare should be discharged from the Training School without judicial review and without any due process protections.” [Id. ¶ 73]. “Schaefer instructed Training School administrators and staff that ‘[i]t’s different now and you don’t need a discharge order signed by a judge.’ ” [Id. ¶ 77]. “Schaefer instructed [administrators] to ‘just put a note in ... the file that says he was discharged or she was discharged.’” [Id.]. “Once there was a piece of paper in the file, residents could be, in Schaefer’s words, ‘cut loose’ from the Training School.” [/d], “Schaefer considered the fall-out from the danger created for residents to be merely a ‘public relations’ issue, not a legal obstacle.” [Id.].
With respect to Plaintiffs’ discharges and post-discharge placements in particular, Defendants discharged Plaintiffs JL, EH, and KC from the Training School, in Los Lunas, New Mexico, on March 23, 1979, and transferred them post-discharge to ENMRSH in Clovis, New Mexico. [Id. ¶¶ 135, 192, 194, 299]. Defendants discharged DA from the Training School on January 17, 1976, and transported DA post-discharge from Los Lunas, New Mexico, to Clovis, New Mexico, [id. ¶ 271]. Defendants discharged RH on May 9, 1980, directly from his aftercare placement at Petty boarding house, but Defendants did not transfer him to ENMRSH or elsewhere because they did not know his whereabouts. [Id. ¶¶ 7, 203]. Defendants “lost track” of RH, but nonetheless “discharged” him ex parte. [Id.]. Defendants discharged GS from the Training School on October 22, 1980. [Id. ¶ 331]. Defendants transported GS post-discharge from Ft. Stanton to his mother’s home in Clovis, New Mexico, with day habilitation services by ENMRSH. [Id. ¶¶ 82, 334],
Defendants did not ask JL, EH, and KC for consent to be discharged from the Training School, transferred from Los Lu-nas to Clovis, and placed at ENMRSH, did not ask DA for consent to be discharged from the Training School and transferred from Los Lunas to Clovis, and did not ask GS for consent to be discharged from the Training School, transferred from Ft. Stanton to Clovis, and placed in his mother’s home in Clovis. [Id. ¶¶ 137, 193, 194, 302, 274, 334], JL, EH, KC, DA, and GS did not agree — either themselves or through a third-party surrogate decision maker — to be discharged, transported, and/or placed in third-party settings. [Id. ¶¶ 137, 193, 302, 274, 334], At the time of her discharge, KC wished to return to her home town of Santa Fe. [Id. ¶ 302],
“Training School administrators deliberately decided not to appoint surrogate decision makers for its residents ... prior to [discharge]. Training School residents were not even informed that they were-no longer clients of the Training School.” [Id. ¶ 73]. Defendants even went so far as to “fraudulently eonceal[] from Plaintiffs their actions in ‘discharging’ Plaintiffs from the Training School, depriving Plaintiffs of any opportunity to know when Defendants had abandoned them.” [Id. ¶ 369].
In addition, Defendants discharged Training School residents routinely without court process. [Id. ¶ 81]. Thus, no court has rescinded the involuntary commitments of Plaintiffs JL, EH, RH, and KC. [Id.]. In contrast, while DA was discharged pursuant to an order dated January 13, 1976, this discharge was ex parte, with no notice to DA or a surrogate, and was “the result of an inaccurate and/or incomplete disclosure to the court of DA’s condition or circumstances.” [Id. ¶ 272]. Moreover, the judicial paperwork to “discharge” DA did not provide the court with notice of Defendants’ plan to transfer custody of Plaintiffs from the Training School to third parties, and it showed that no surrogate decision makers were informed of the “discharge” or transfer of custody to third parties. [Id. ¶¶ 82, 331, 332], Likewise, while Defendants effectuated judicial paperwork to “discharge” GS, the paperwork was ex parte and it did not provide the court with notice of Defendants’ plan to transfer custody of GS from the Training School to third parties, and it showed that no surrogate decision makers were informed of the “discharge” or transfer of custody to third parties. [Id. ¶¶ 82, 331, 332]. Similarly, Defendants did not provide GS or a surrogate with notice or any other due process protections and Defendants provided an inaccurate and/or incomplete assessment of GS’s condition or circumstances to the Court. [Id. ¶ 332],
Plaintiffs, with the exception of GS who left ENMRSH in 2010, have remained at ENMRSH through at least the date of the filing of the complaint. [Id. ¶ 10].
V. The Alleged Deprivations of Plaintiffs’ Liberty and Property Interests.
The complaint alleges that while at ENMRSH and/or other third-party placements, Plaintiffs suffered various forms of abuse, neglect, and economic exploitation. [Id. ¶¶ 112-22], “Plaintiffs were physically and medically neglected during their place-' ments.” [Id ¶ 99]. At Petty boarding home, RH was forced to sleep outside if he failed to return on time, regardless of the temperature. [Id. ¶ 7], “ENMRSH ... failed to address Plaintiffs’ critical medical needs,” [id. ¶ 112], “failed to ensure that Plaintiffs receive adequate behavioral supports,” [id. ¶ 113], “failed to provide Plaintiffs with support for their daily living needs and activities, including but not limited to assistance with securing nutritious food, preparing healthy meals, daily personal hygiene and environmental cleanliness, and mobility and transportation,” [id. ¶ 114], “failed to address Plaintiffs’ need for periodic nutritional assessment and] assistance” and “failed to ensure that Plaintiffs JL, RH, EH, and KC have sufficient healthy food or access to food each day,” [id. ¶ 115], failed to place Plaintiffs in safe housing, [id. ¶ 118], “failed to provide or ensure appropriate supported employment for Plaintiffs,” [id. ¶ 117], “failed to provide Plaintiffs with meaningful activity during the day,” [id. ¶ 120], and “coerced Plaintiffs to cut off ties to potential advocates,” [id. ¶ 121].
Plaintiffs also were subject to financial exploitation at ENMRSH. “ENMRSH has operated as representative payee for Plaintiffs, and, instead of acting consistent with its fiduciary duty to “utilize[e] Medicaid funds and other financial resources provided for the purpose of assisting Plaintiffs ..., for the ostensible benefit of Plaintiffs ..., ENMRSH Defendants instead used these financial resources to benefit themselves and their employees.” [Id. ¶ 119]. “ENMRSH Defendants converted Plaintiffs’ social security checks, for their own use and did not account for their expenditures or spend all the funds for the benefit of Plaintiffs.” [Id. ¶ 100],
The complaint alleges that Defendants “were aware of the likelihood of abuse ... as a result of their dumping of residents without due process or judicial or Training School oversight,” [id. ¶ 96], and charges Defendants with “causing] or permitting]” this abuse and neglect, [id. ¶ 8]. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to protect Plaintiffs over the 30-year period that Plaintiffs were placed at ENMRSH. [Id. ¶ 97]. The complaint alleges that Defendants “permitt[ed] their agents, the ENMRSH Defendants, to deprive Plaintiffs of social services, decent, safe, and sanitary housing, the opportunity to associate with their family or peers, Medicaid benefits, social security benefits, adequate safety, medical, dental and psychological care, rehabilitative, educational and vocational services, day habilitation and therapy, and their basic human rights.” [Id.].
The complaint further alleges that had Defendants placed Plaintiffs with “a professionally managed provider agency that complied with applicable laws and regulations,” they would have received the services they needed. [M]. Moreover, the complaint alleges that “[i]f Plaintiffs had continued to reside at the Training School, under law, a vast array of services and legal protections would have been available to them,” and “[a]fter placing Plaintiffs in outside settings and/or after purportedly discharging them from aftercare, ... Defendants ceased providing these needed services and protections to Plaintiffs and deprived Plaintiffs of these services and of their legal rights to adequate care and treatment.” [Id. ¶ 98].
With respect to financial exploitation, the complaint alleges that Defendants “facilitated the transfer of JL’s, EH’s, DA’s, EC’s, and GS’s social security checks to ENMRSH ... without having ENMRSH ... appointed as Plaintiffs’ conservator, and with deliberate indifference to whether ENMRSH Defendants were using or intended to use these social security funds for the benefit of Plaintiffs.” [Id ¶ 93], “[T]he transfer of these social security funds to ENMRSH Defendants was without judicial oversight, or ... Defendants misled the court regarding the future use of these social security funds.” [Id. ¶ 94]. Defendants “were aware that ENMRSH ... intended to keep Plaintiffs’ federal benefits[ ] and approved the arrangement.” [Id. ¶ 101].
STANDARD
“The nature of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the allegations within the four corners of the complaint after taking those allegations as true.” Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir.1994). The sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law, and, in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations, view those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007). A complaint need not set forth detailed factual allegations, yet a “pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Rather, to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiffs complaint must contain sufficient facts which, if assumed to be true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to (1) come forward with allegations sufficient to show that the defendant’s alleged actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right and (2) show that the federal right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 646 (10th Cir.1988). “ ‘[T]he right [an officer is] alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.’ ” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). For a right to be “particularized,” there “ordinarily ... must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion on point,” Garramone v. Romo, 94 F.3d 1446, 1451 (10th Cir.1996), or “the weight of authority from other courts [must] show[ ] the right [to] be as plaintiff maintains,” Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, 1248 (10th Cir.2003). A district court has “the freedom to decide ‘which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.’ ” Lundstrom v. Romero, 616 F.3d 1108, 1118 (10th Cir.2010) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)).
DISCUSSION
This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves four motions to dismiss: the Motion to Dismiss Procedural Due Process Claims, the Motion to Dismiss Court Access Claims, the Motion to Dismiss First Amendment Claim, and the Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amendment Claim. In each motion, Defendants contend that qualified immunity shields them from suit. The Court addresses each motion in turn.
I. Motion to Dismiss Procedural Due Process Claims [Doc. 267].
Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 for violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. Defendants argue that they are shielded by qualified immunity from these claims. Specifically, Defendants contend that they are immune from claims that Defendants’ actions of temporarily placing Plaintiffs on aftercare in third-party settings, permanently discharging Plaintiffs from the Training School, and transferring Plaintiffs post-discharge to ENMRSH deprived Plaintiffs of their liberty interests in (1) freedom from undue restraint; (2) personal security and safe conditions of confinement; (3) minimally adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; (4) ha-bilitation and training services; (5) placement in the least restrictive setting; and (6) the opportunity to associate with family and peers. Defendants also contend that they are immune from claims that Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their property interests in (1) state-funded care, custody, employment, education, and training provided for by the New Mexico Developmental Disabilities Code in effect at the time of Plaintiffs’ commitments to the Training School, and (2) in receiving certain Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare payments and benefits.
A. Plaintiffs have not Sufficiently Alleged that Discharge from the Training School Infringed Clearly Established Protected Liberty Interests but have Sufficiently Alleged that Discharge did Impinge Clearly Established Protected Property Interests.
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts establishing that their discharges from the Training School infringed interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property. Alternatively, Defendants assert that, even if the discharges deprived Plaintiffs of a protected right, Defendants nonetheless are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to show that the interests protected were clearly established.
1. Plaintiffs have not Sufficiently Alleged that Discharge from the Training School Deprived Them of a Protected Liberty Interest.
While “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any state deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977), “[t]he requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property,” Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). “[T]o determine whether due process requirements apply in the first place, [a court] must look not to the ‘weight’ but to the nature of the interest at stake.” Id. at 570-71, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (citation omitted). The identification of the interests that are protected by the due process clause is a question of federal constitutional law. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Only if challenged conduct implicates an interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment must a court determine what procedures are due. See Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 672, 97 S.Ct. 1401.
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing that their discharges from the Training School implicated a liberty interest protected by the due process clause. The Supreme Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, but “‘[without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint.’ ” Roth, 408 U.S. at 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (additional citations omitted). “A liberty interest may arise from the Constitution itself, by reason of guarantees implicit in the word ‘liberty,’ or it may arise from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (citations omitted).
According to Defendants, while Plaintiffs possessed certain clearly established liberty interests in freedom from undue restraint, personal security, and to minimally adequate food, shelter, and medical care while in state custody, Plaintiffs have not stated a constitutional violation because these liberty interests terminated upon Plaintiffs’ discharges from state custody. Defendants also argue that even if Plaintiffs had a liberty interest in receipt of habilitation services, placement in the least restrictive setting, and the opportunity to associate with family, these interests existed only while Plaintiffs remained in state custody. Defendants reason that because Plaintiffs had no liberty interest in remaining committed to state custody and no liberty interest in receiving substantive services once discharged from state custody, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing that their discharges implicated a constitutionally-protected liberty interest. The Court agrees.
The Supreme Court specifically held in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989), that a state has “no constitutional duty to provide substantive services for those within its border.” Id. at 196, 109 S.Ct. 998. The DeShaney Court explained that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security;” the clause “forbids the State itself,” through its own affirmative conduct, of depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property without ‘due process of law;’ ” and that the clause was “intended to prevent government from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression.” Id. at 195-96, 109 S.Ct. 998 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The DeShaney Court recognized that, “[consistent with these principles, [the Supreme Court’s] cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.” Id. at 196, 109 S.Ct. 998 (citations omitted). From there, the Court reasoned that “[i]f the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them.” Id. at 196-97,109 S.Ct. 998.
While a state has no general duty to provide substantive services to its citizens, it does have a duty to provide services to those it has involuntarily committed to state custody. The DeShaney Court explained that when “the state takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being.” Id. at 199-200, 109 S.Ct. 998; see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 317, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (“When a person is institutionalized — and wholly dependent on the State[ — ]a duty to provide certain services and care does exist.”). This duty arises because the involuntarily committed person is “unable by reason of the deprivation of his liberty [to] care for himself,” and “it is only just that the State be required to care for him.” DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199, 109 S.Ct. 998 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)) (additional citation omitted). “The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs — e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety — it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the ... Due Process Clause.” Id. at 200, 109 S.Ct. 998. This affirmative duty to provide substantive services arises, however, only because the state has “restrain[ed] the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf — through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty” — and it is the restraint of an individual’s ability to act on his or her own behalf that is the deprivation of liberty, not the failure to provide substantive services. Id.
Thus, consistent with these principles, the Court concludes that when the state terminates an involuntary commitment, the rationale for imposing a special obligation upon the state — ie., that the state has prevented the person from caring for himself or herself — likewise expires. Therefore, upon termination of an involuntary commitment, the corresponding duty to provide substantive services that arose upon commitment necessarily also ceases, and the general rule that a state has no duty to provide its citizens with affirmative services or protection again controls. See id. at 201, 109 S.Ct. 998 (explaining “the State does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual’s safety by having once offered him shelter,” and reasoning that simply because “the State once took temporary custody of [of a minor child pending investigation of suspected child abuse] does not alter the analysis, for when it returned him to his father’s custody, it placed him in no worse position than that in which he would have been had it not acted at all”).
To the extent that Plaintiffs allege that Defendants deprived them of a protected liberty interest by discharging them from the Training School and denying them the corresponding protection and care that accompanied their involuntary commitments, the Court holds that the nature of the interests alleged — ie., interests in remaining committed to state custody, being entitled to state protection, having the state provide food, shelter, medical care, and habilitation services, being placed in the least restrictive setting, and receiving the opportunity to associate with family and peers — is the equivalent of a claim of entitlement to receive substantive services from the state. Upon Plaintiffs’ discharges, however, DeShaney compels the Court to conclude that Plaintiffs no longer possessed liberty interests in receiving any substantive services from the state. For these reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that their discharges from the Training School deprived them of any constitutionally-protected liberty interest.
2. Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Alleged that the Discharges Deprived Them of a Clearly Established Protected Property Interest.
The complaint alleges that Defendants’ conduct of discharging Plaintiffs deprived Plaintiffs of a protected property interest in being committed to state custody and receiving benefits arising out of that commitment. Defendants maintain that they are shielded by qualified immunity from this claim because Plaintiffs have not, consistent with the first part of their qualified immunity burden, alleged facts establishing the existence of a property right, i.e., namely, that state law created a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued commitment and receipt of benefits. Defendants further assert that even if state law created a protected property interest, Defendants nonetheless are immune because Plaintiffs have not shown, consistent with the second part of their burden, that it was clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs’ discharges that the deprivation of the property interest was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,
a. Plaintiffs Have Alleged a Protected Property Interest.
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing that they had a protected property interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment because, according to Defendants, Plaintiffs did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to any medical benefits, habili-tation services, or other government-funded treatments. Defendants properly assert that, to avoid dismissal, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that they possessed a constitutionally-protected right to the continuation of the benefits granted under state law, or, stated differently, that they had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefits. See Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 538, 105 S.Ct. 1487.
Plaintiffs contend that the 1958 New Mexico Developmental Disabilities Code in effect at the time of their commitments created a property interest in Plaintiffs’ continued commitment to state custody and continued receipt of benefits. The viability of Plaintiffs’ due process claim depends on Plaintiffs having had a property right to remain in state custody and to receive the corresponding benefits of state custody.. If Plaintiffs had such a right, Defendants could not deprive them of it without due process.
The due process clause protects the property interests of involuntarily committed persons. “Property interests ... are not created by the Constitution,” but “[r]ather[ ] are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701; see also Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 572-73, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975). The New Mexico statute in effect at the time of Plaintiffs’ commitments plainly created such an interest.
At the time of Plaintiffs’ commitments, the 1953 New Mexico Developmental Disabilities Code provided for both involuntary and voluntary commitments to the Training School. With respect to involuntary commitment, the statute provided that if a court, after a hearing and examination, determined a “person ... to be mentally defective, as defined in section 34-3-1,” i.e., as a person “incapable of managing himself and his affairs” and “requirfing] supervision, care and control for his own welfare, or for the welfare of others, or for the welfare of the community,” “the court may enter its temporary order of commitment of the individual ... for a period not to exceed thirty [30] days.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-3-6CB), § 34-3-1 (1953). If during the 30-day temporary commitment the hospital evaluation board determines that institutional care is warranted because the person “is ... a mentally defective person,” the hospital board may then certify this determination to the court and the court thereafter may enter a “regular order of commitment.” Id. § 34-3-6.1(B), 6.2(C). The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs, with the exception of GS, were involuntarily committed to the Training School by court order because they met the foregoing criteria for admission. GS, in contrast, was committed to the Training School pursuant to the statute’s provisions for voluntary commitments, which provide that, “[t]o the extent that accommodations are available, the [Training School] shall admit to the institution mentally defective persons voluntarily admitted to the institution by their parents, guardians or other persons having custody and control.” Id. § 34-3-10.
Once courts admitted Plaintiffs to the Training School, the New Mexico code then in effect established the benefits to which Plaintiffs were entitled. The statute provided that it “established] and hereinafter maintain[s] by th[e] state an institution to be known as ‘Los Lunas Hospital and Training School’ for the care, custody, employment, education and training of “mental defectives.” Id. § 34-3-2. The statute provided that the Training School would be staffed by “a principal and a sufficient number of qualified teachers who are certified by the state board of education.” Id. § 34-3-5(B). The statute further provided, with respect to those involuntarily committed, that a court “shall inquire into the ability of [the involuntarily committed inmate’s] parents, guardians or custodians to contribute to the maintenance and support of such persons,” but also that “[w]here no order of court is entered regarding ... expenses and maintenance, ... the expenses and maintenance of the inmate” “shall be defrayed” “by the institution.” Id. § 34-3-8(A). The statute further provided, with respect to those voluntarily committed, that the Training School “shall inquire as to the financial capability of the mentally defective person’s parents, guardians or other-persons having custody of a voluntarily admitted patient, and may ... require nonindigent parents, guardians or other persons having custody to make reasonable contributions toward the support and maintenance of the mentally defective person ...; Provided, however, that such contributions shall be based on ability to pay.” Id. § 34-3-10.
The complaint contains no allegations of a court order requiring Plaintiffs’ parents or any other third-party to pay Plaintiffs’ expenses, or that the Training School required GS’s parents or custodians to contribute to his expenses. Thus, construing the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court assumes that there were no such orders or required contributions. Accordingly, upon their commitments, the statute granted Plaintiffs the right to state-funded care, custody, employment, education from certified teachers, and training.
The Court holds that the affirmative provisions in the 1953 Developmental Disabilities Code granting Plaintiffs state-funded benefits created a claim of entitlement to benefits grounded in the statute defining Plaintiffs’ eligibility. The Supreme Court has recognized that “[c]ertain attributes of ‘property’ interests protected by procedural due process emerge from [its] decisions.” Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701. For example, “[t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Id. Furthermore, “[t]he hallmark of property, the [Supreme] Court has emphasized, is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except for cause.” Setliff v. Mem. Hosp., 850 F.2d 1384, 1395 (10th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiffs’ expectations, upon their commitments pursuant to the New Mexico statute, were not unilateral and they did not constitute a mere abstract need or desire. Rather, the New Mexico statute in effect at the time of Plaintiffs’ involuntary commitments clearly granted Plaintiffs, upon commitment, the right to receive state-funded benefits, and Plaintiffs, under the statute, had a clear right to rely upon this entitlement. The Fourteenth Amendment protects precisely this type of statutorily-induced reliance.
That the statute created a claim of entitlement protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is demonstrated by the code’s provisions explicitly providing that an involuntary commitment may be rescinded only for “good cause,” only upon a determination by the court originally committing the inmate to state custody, and only upon a recommendation from the institution that the inmate is capable of adjusting “satisfactorily” to normal life. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-3-7(A). These limitations on the right to discharge, in conjunction with the benefits conferred, created a property interest grounded in state law that could not be removed without due process of law.
Defendants argue that, because the New Mexico legislature amended the Developmental Disabilities Code, and, commencing in July of 1977, the procedures for commitment and discharge from the Training School changed, Plaintiffs were not, in fact, entitled to remain committed to state custody or to receive continuing benefits arising from that commitment. Defendants argue that the amended code limited the duration of a court’s order of involuntary commitment to “a period not to exceed six months,” and that the code provided that, at the expiration of this six-month period, a client of.the Training School could be detained only after a new order was entered, pursuant to a new commitment hearing. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 43-1-12(C), (D) (1977).
That the code’s provisions pursuant to which Plaintiffs were admitted to the Training School were repealed by the New Mexico legislature and that new criteria for admissions were passed and in effect on the date of Plaintiffs’ discharges is not determinative of the constitutional question of procedure before the Court. See, e.g., Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Sys., Inc., 195 F.3d 584, 591 n. 2 (10th Cir.1999) (“[A] state statute does not and cannot define the scope of constitutional rights.”). Rather, although independent sources such as state law create property rights, “federal constitutional law determines whether that interest rises to the level of a legitimate claim of entitlement protected by the Due Process Clause.” Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 541, 105 5.Ct. 1487. Thus, Plaintiffs need not establish that they were, in fact, entitled to remain in state custody or were, in fact, entitled to continue receiving benefits associated with their commitments to state custody. Likewise, this Court need not determine whether the 1953 criteria for discharge governed Plaintiffs’ discharges, or whether the criteria in the amendments in effect after 1977 instead applied. The only question before the Court is one of procedure, ie., whether state law created a property right that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and, if so, what procedures were required to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to establish their eligibility to receive the property right. By holding that the 1953 statute created such a protected right, the Court recognizes only that Plaintiffs were entitled, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections, to notice and an opportunity to be heard so that they might persuade some other tribunal that they were entitled to remain involuntarily committed to state custody and receive corresponding state-funded benefits. Cf. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (explaining that to hold that a protected property interest exists is not the equivalent of a substantive determination that a plaintiff, in fact, is eligible for receipt of the benefit, but rather is a matter of procedure that grants the plaintiff the right to a hearing at which he or she might attempt to persuade a tribunal that the plaintiff is, in fact, eligible to receive benefits).
The Court’s conclusion is consistent with numerous Supreme Court decisions holding that a state, having at one time extended a benefit, cannot thereafter terminate the benefit in the absence of fundamentally fair procedures. For example, in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262, 264, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), the Supreme Court confirmed that a person receiving welfare benefits under statutory and administrative standards defining eligibility has an interest in continued receipt of those benefits safeguarded by procedural due process. In Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551, 556-57, 559, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956), the Supreme Court held that a public college professor dismissed from an office held under tenure provisions had an interest in retaining his position safeguarded by due process. See also Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 538-39, 105 S.Ct. 1487 (holding that an Ohio statute “plainly ereate[d]” a property interest because respondents, under the statute, were classified civil service employees entitled to retain their positions during good behavior who could not be dismissed except for cause). In Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 573-74, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975), the Supreme Court held that a state having “chosen to extend the right to an education to people of appellees’ class generally,” and having a compulsory attendance law, “may not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred.” In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), the Supreme Court held that although a parolee has no constitutional right to that status, once granted, the status cannot be revoked without due process protections. And, in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556-57, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), the Supreme Court held that when a state law grants prisoners a right to a shortened sentence based upon the accumulation of good-time credits and recognizes that the deprivation of the credits is a sanction for major misconduct, the state cannot cancel those credits without due process of law even though the benefits were not mandated in the first instance by the Constitution. Similarly, where, as here, New Mexico involuntarily commits a class of persons that it determines are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and affords to that class rights to state-funded care, custody, employment, education, and training, all of which cannot be taken away without cause, New Mexico cannot withdraw those rights without due process of law. While the Constitution did not require New Mexico to provide these substantive rights in the first place, once New Mexico opted to grant these benefits, the Fourteenth Amendment protected these property interests from arbitrary deprivation.
Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unavailing. First, Defendants contend that the statute provides only for the “establishment of an institution for the purpose of providing ‘care,’ ” and that “[i]t in no way provides for the creation of a right to specific benefits” or “defines standards of eligibility for the receipt of specific benefits as required by Roth.” [Doc. 285 at 15-16]. Although the statute does provide for the establishment of an institution, it also grants benefits to those committed to the Training School. In particular, the statute provides to those eligible for involuntary commitment the benefits of state-provided “care, custody, employment, education and training.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-3-2 (1953). The statute also provides that these benefits shall be funded by the state unless provided for otherwise by court order. See id. § 34-3-8 (providing for state funding of benefits for those involuntarily committed unless ordered otherwise by a court); compare id. § 34-3-10 (providing for state funding of benefits for those voluntarily committed based upon ability to pay).
Moreover, the statute clearly establishes the standards for eligibility for involuntary commitment to the Training School as well as receipt of state-funded benefits of care, custody, employment, education, and training. The criteria for involuntary commitment include an initial court hearing and examination, a finding by the court that the person meets the definition of “mental defective,” the issuance of a 30-day temporary order of commitment, a finding by the hospital board that the person meets the definition of “mental defective,” a certification by the hospital evaluation board to the court confirming the board’s conclusion, and the entering by the court of a final order for “regular” commitment. Id. §§ 34-3-6(B), 34-3-1, 34-3-6.1(B), 34-3-6.2(C); see also id. § 34-3-8(B) (providing that to be eligible for commitment, the person or his or her guardian must have been a legal resident of New Mexico for one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition for commitment). The statute further provides that the criteria for state-funded care is a court inquiry into the ability of the committed person’s parents, guardians, or custodians to contribute to the resident’s maintenance and support, and the failure of a court to enter an order requiring contribution from parents or guardians. See id. § 34-3-8(A) (setting forth the standard for involuntarily-admitted residents); see also id. § 34-3-10 (setting forth a similar standard for involuntarily-committed residents).
Next, Defendants argue that “once Plaintiffs’ indeterminate commitments to the Training School lapsed pursuant to the repeal of that statute on July 1, 1977, the Training School had no further right or legal obligation to detain JL, EH, RH, KC, and GS.” [Doc. 285 at 16]. As explained above, the procedural due process inquiry does not require the Court to decide the merits of the question whether Plaintiffs, in fact, are eligible to receive the benefits arising out of their involuntary commitment to the Training School. The only question before the Court is the procedural question whether the statute of commitment gave rise to a legitimate claim of a constitutionally-protected entitlement to the benefits conferred therein; if so, the Fourteenth Amendment grants Plaintiffs the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the substantive question of eligibility for receipt of benefits.
Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs had no property right to receive habil-itation services because those rights “were provided to individuals while in state custody, such as food, shelter, medical care, or even habilitation” and “necessarily ... ceased when institutionalization ended.” [Doc. 285]. This argument confuses the issue of Plaintiffs alleged liberty interest in receiving habilitation services, discussed above, with Plaintiffs’ claim that they have a property interest in receiving habilitation services. See supra § I.A.1. While the question whether Plaintiffs had a protected liberty interest in receiving habilitation services turns on Plaintiffs’ status of being committed (or not committed) to state custody, in contrast, the question whether Plaintiffs had a protected property interest in receiving habilitation services does not turn on commitment status. Rather, property rights are created by some independent source, such as a state law, which gives rise to a legitimate claim of entitlement. Thus, the Court rejects Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs’ discharges from the Training School vitiate Plaintiffs’ property-based procedural due process claim.
b. Plaintiffs have Shown that the Property Right Infringed by Their Discharges was Clearly Established.
Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiffs have alleged facts implicating the deprivation of a protected property interest, Defendants nonetheless are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to show that their alleged property right to state-funded benefits was clearly established at the time of their commitments. The Court is not persuaded.
At the time Plaintiffs were discharged, the Supreme Court had clearly held that, once benefits to which an individual has a legitimate claim of entitlement are conferred, they cannot thereafter be terminated without fundamentally fair procedures. See Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 262, 264, 90 S.Ct. 1011; Slochower, 350 U.S. at 556-57, 559, 76 S.Ct. 637; Goss, 419 U.S. at 573-74, 95 S.Ct. 729; Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556-57, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963. These cases provided Defendants with notice that the benefits of state-funded care, custody, employment, education, and training conferred upon inmates by the 1953 Developmental Disabilities Code constituted protected property rights of which Plaintiffs could not be deprived without due process of law. These cases also clearly established a general framework requiring the court to examine the contours or attributes of a property right, including whether it gives rise to a legitimate claim of entitlement and whether that entitlement cannot be removed except for cause, to determine whether that right is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701; Setliff, 850 F.2d at 1895. Defendants were on clear notice at the time of Plaintiffs’ discharges that a court would apply this framework to determine whether Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of a state-created property right and if so, would conclude that Plaintiffs were entitled to due process in conjunction with the deprivation.
It is of no consequence that neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit have specifically held that benefits conferred upon those involuntarily committed to state custody, under a statute prohibiting the termination of that commitment absent good cause, are protected property rights. Although ordinarily for the law to be clearly established there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains, the Supreme Court has confirmed that a plaintiff need not find a case declaring the very action in question unlawful. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Further, the Tenth Circuit has explained that “[a] plaintiff may ... carry the burden of demonstrating a right is clearly established by citing cases that have a sufficient degree of factual correspondence to enable a reasonable officfial] to know that the officer’s acts violated the plaintiffs constitutional ... rights.” Kerns v. Bader, 663 F.3d 1173, 1187 (2011) (citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. , 133 S.Ct. 645, 184 L.Ed.2d 457 (2012)).
Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ cases stand only for discrete applications of law to narrow and specific factual circumstances. The Court disagrees. To the contrary, the Supreme Court cases cited by Plaintiffs have a sufficient degree of factual correspondence to enable a reasonable official in Defendants’ position to know that Plaintiffs possessed protected property rights in their commitments and in the benefits of state-funded care arising in conjunction with their commitments. The Court thus rejects Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their qualified immunity burden of showing that the law was clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs’ discharges.
B. Plaintiffs have Sufficiently Alleged that Transfer from the Training School to Third-Party Settings Infringed Some, but Not All, of Plaintiffs’ Clearly Established Interests.
The complaint not only challenges Plaintiffs’ discharges from state custody but also Defendants’ aftercare and post-discharge transfers of Plaintiffs to ENMRSH and/or other third-party providers. Thus, the Court must consider whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that transfer from the Training School to third-party settings infringed their clearly established interests.
1. Plaintiffs have Sufficiently Alleged that Defendants’ Post-Discharge (but not Aftercare) Transfer of Plaintiffs to ENMRSH or Other Third-Party Settings Deprived Plaintiffs of a Clearly Established Liberty Interest in Freedom from Undue Restraint.
Although the Court has held that that Defendants’ discharges of Plaintiffs from state custody did not implicate a protected liberty interest in freedom from undue restraint, Plaintiffs also allege that, post-discharge, Defendants physically transported Plaintiffs (with the exception of RH) from Los Lunas to Clovis, New Mexico, and placed Plaintiffs in Clovis with ENMRSH or other third-party setting, without providing Plaintiffs with notice of the discharges and transfers, without obtaining Plaintiffs’ consent for the discharges and transfers, and without giving Plaintiffs any choice regarding their placements. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that even if Defendants had given Plaintiffs notice or a choice, because of Plaintiffs’ developmental disabilities, Plaintiffs were unable to consent voluntarily and competently to placement in a third-party setting, and that Defendants therefore should have provided notice to and obtained consent from substitute decision makers with capacity to make decisions on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
Freedom from restraint is one of the historic liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 672-73, 97 S.Ct. 1401; Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315, 102 S.Ct. 2452. This liberty interest did not arise because of Plaintiffs’ institutional confinement but rather existed prior to their commitments, remained intact during their commitments, and continued after their discharges from involuntary commitment. See, e.g., id. (explaining that the “historic” rights to personal security and freedom from bodily restraint are “not extinguished by lawful confinement”); Thomas S. v. Morrow, 781 F.2d 367, 374 (4th Cir.1986) (explaining that “the liberty interests protected in Youngberg did not arise because of the institutional confinement,” but “Mather, the Court’s premise was that involuntary commitment and other lawful confinement do not extinguish pre-existing liberty interests in safety and freedom from bodily restraint) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1124, 106 S.Ct. 1992, 90 L.Ed.2d 673 (1986), and 479 U.S. 869, 107 S.Ct. 235, 93 L.Ed.2d 161 (1986).
Although Plaintiffs’ liberty interest in freedom from restraint was not extinguished by commitment, while Plaintiffs were involuntarily committed to state custody, Defendants necessarily were justified in restraining Plaintiffs’ freedom. When Defendants severed the state’s custody over Plaintiffs, however, they no longer had any justification for restraining Plaintiffs’ freedom. Yet Defendants nonetheless retained physical custody over Plaintiffs, transported Plaintiffs across the state, and placed Plaintiffs at ENMRSH or other third-party settings.
In In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 27, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), the