## Facts

- Jessica Gonzales obtained a Colorado restraining order against her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, restricting contact with her and their children and limiting his access to the family home.
- The standardized order included a notice to law enforcement stating officers “shall use every reasonable means to enforce” the order and “shall arrest” or seek a warrant upon probable cause of a violation.
- In June 1999, while the order was in effect, Simon took the couple’s three daughters contrary to the order’s parenting-time provisions.
- Over several hours, Jessica repeatedly contacted the Castle Rock Police Department, reporting the violation and providing information about Simon’s location; police advised her to wait and did not promptly seek his arrest or conduct an immediate search.
- Around 3:20 a.m., Simon arrived at the police station and exchanged gunfire with officers; he was killed.
- The three children were found murdered in Simon’s truck.
- Jessica sued the Town of Castle Rock under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the police, acting under policy or custom, deprived her of procedural due process by failing to enforce the restraining order, which she characterized as a protected property interest.

## Issues

1. Whether state law and the terms of a restraining order created a constitutionally protected property interest, for procedural due process purposes, in police enforcement of the order.
2. Whether alleged nonenforcement of a restraining order can support a § 1983 procedural due process claim absent such a property interest.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit in a 7–2 decision.
- The Court held that the restraining-order holder did not have a property interest, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, in police enforcement of the restraining order.
- Because no protected property interest existed, the procedural due process claim failed at the threshold, and the Court did not determine what process would be due.

## Legal Principles

- A procedural due process property interest requires a legitimate claim of entitlement created by state law; a unilateral expectation is insufficient.
- A benefit is not a protected entitlement when government officials retain discretion over whether and how it is provided.
- “Mandatory” statutory language directing police to act does not, without clear indication, eliminate traditional enforcement discretion or create an individual entitlement to enforcement.
- Enforcement of criminal and protective-order regimes is generally understood as serving public purposes and does not ordinarily confer a private, property-like right to specific enforcement action enforceable via § 1983.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Colorado’s restraining-order framework did not confer a constitutionally protected property interest in police enforcement of the order, so the municipality’s alleged failure to arrest or seek a warrant could not support a procedural due process claim under § 1983.


Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)