Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2004 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, 
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED 
MINOR CHILDREN, GONZALES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 04–278.  Argued March 21, 2005—Decided June 27, 2005 

Respondent  filed  this  suit  under  42  U. S. C.  §1983  alleging  that  peti-
tioner  violated  the  Fourteenth  Amendment’s  Due  Process  Clause 
when  its  police  officers,  acting  pursuant  to  official  policy  or  custom, 
failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her 
estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her 
restraining  order  against  him.    Ultimately,  the  husband  murdered 
the  children.    The  District  Court  granted  the  town’s  motion  to  dis-
miss, but an en banc majority of the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding 
that  respondent  had  alleged  a  cognizable  procedural  due  process 
claim  because  a  Colorado  statute  established  the  state  legislature’s 
clear intent to require police to enforce retraining orders, and thus its 
intent  that  the  order’s  recipient  have  an  entitlement  to  its  enforce-
ment.  The  court  therefore  ruled,  among  other  things,  that  respon-
dent  had  a  protected  property  interest  in  the  enforcement  of  her  re-
straining order. 

Held: Respondent  did  not,  for  Due  Process  Clause  purposes,  have  a 
property  interest  in  police  enforcement  of  the  restraining  order 
against her husband. Pp. 6–19. 

(a) The  Due  Process  Clause’s  procedural  component  does  not  pro-
tect  everything  that  might  be  described  as  a  government  “bene-
fit”: “To  have  a  property  interest  in  a  benefit,  a  person  . . .  must  . . . 
have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”  Board of Regents of State 
Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577.  Such entitlements are created by 
existing rules or understandings stemming from an independent source 
such as state law.  E.g., ibid.  Pp. 6–7.