## Facts

- California maintained a statewide Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) that recorded reports of suspected child abuse and made the information available to specified government agencies for law-enforcement, child-welfare, and licensing uses.
- Craig and Wendy Humphries were investigated for alleged child abuse, and a county law-enforcement report was transmitted in a manner that resulted in their placement in the CACI.
- Criminal charges against the Humphries were dismissed, and they were later cleared in related dependency proceedings.
- Despite exoneration, the Humphries remained listed in the CACI and alleged employment and program-participation harms, along with reputational stigma from being officially labeled suspected child abusers.
- The statutory scheme did not provide a meaningful mechanism for a listed person to obtain notice, contest inclusion, or secure removal from the index.
- The Humphries sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Los Angeles, county officials, and the California Attorney General, seeking damages and prospective declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the Humphries appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether continued inclusion of exonerated individuals in a statewide child-abuse index, without a meaningful procedure to challenge or remove the listing, violates procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the asserted harms satisfied the “stigma-plus” requirement for a protected liberty interest.
3. Whether prospective declaratory and injunctive relief could be ordered against state and county officials responsible for maintaining or enforcing the challenged scheme, and what further proceedings were required as to the County’s liability and immunity defenses.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment in significant part and remanded.
- The court held that the Humphries alleged and produced evidence of a protected liberty interest because the CACI listing imposed reputational stigma coupled with tangible consequences affecting legal rights and opportunities.
- The court held the absence of adequate procedures to provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest CACI placement violated procedural due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge framework.
- The court concluded the Humphries were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief requiring constitutionally sufficient procedures to challenge continued inclusion.
- As to the County, the court indicated the record could support a finding that county practices amounted to a policy or custom causing the deprivation, and remanded for further consideration, including qualified-immunity-related issues and the scope of relief.

## Legal Principles

- A due process liberty interest may arise under a “stigma-plus” theory when governmental action imposes reputational harm plus a material alteration of status or a concrete deprivation affecting rights or opportunities.
- When a protected liberty interest is implicated, procedural adequacy is assessed under Mathews v. Eldridge by balancing the private interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation under existing procedures and value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interest.
- A statutory and administrative framework that maintains individuals on a statewide abuse registry with serious downstream consequences, yet provides no meaningful notice and no mechanism to contest or remove the listing, fails procedural due process.
- Ongoing maintenance of a challenged listing without constitutionally sufficient procedures can support prospective declaratory and injunctive relief under § 1983 against responsible officials.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that maintaining exonerated individuals on California’s child-abuse index without meaningful notice and a procedure to challenge or remove the listing violated procedural due process because the registry’s stigma and concrete collateral consequences implicated a protected liberty interest; the court reversed in part and remanded for implementation and tailoring of prospective relief and further proceedings regarding the County’s responsibility and defenses.


Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2008)