Opinion ID: 169524
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Wards' Procedural Due Process Claim

Text: In resolving a procedural due process claim, we generally engage in a two-step inquiry: (1) Did the individual possess a protected interest to which due process protection was applicable? (2) Was the individual afforded an appropriate level of process? Kirkland v. St. Vrain Valley Sch. Dist., 464 F.3d 1182, 1189 (10th Cir.2006) (quoting Copelin-Brown v. N.M. State Pers. Office, 399 F.3d 1248, 1254 (10th Cir.2005)). We find it unnecessary to address the first step of this inquiry here, however, because regardless of the injury claimed it is clear that the Wards received sufficient process during and immediately following the DFS investigation. [6] For reasons that are opaque to us, both parties focus their procedural due process arguments on the provisions of the Wyoming statutes and the DFS regulations that provide for hearings. They disagree whether the statutes and regulations require a hearing when, as in the instant case, the DFS does not plan to revoke or suspend a child care provider's license. [7] However, these arguments are a red herring; the question raised in a procedural due process challenge is whether the level of process afforded to the Wards passed constitutional muster, not whether DFS followed statutes or regulations. [A] failure to comply with state or local procedural requirements does not necessarily constitute a denial of due process; the alleged violation must result in a procedure which itself falls short of standards derived from the Due Process Clause. Hennigh v. City of Shawnee, 155 F.3d 1249, 1256 (10th Cir.1998) (quotation omitted); see Hulen v. Yates, 322 F.3d 1229, 1247 (10th Cir.2003) ([O]nce the property right is established, it is purely a matter of federal constitutional law whether the procedure afforded was adequate.); see also Levitt v. Univ. of Tex. at El Paso, 759 F.2d 1224, 1230 (5th Cir.1985) ([N]ot every violation by an agency of [its own] rules rises to the level of a due process claim. (quotation omitted)). When assessing a procedural due process claim, this court looks to the three-factor balancing test articulated by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). See Kirkland, 464 F.3d at 1192; Stanko v. Maher, 419 F.3d 1107, 1115-16 (10th Cir.2005). The three factors are: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Stanko, 419 F.3d at 1115-16. We have repeatedly emphasized the Supreme Court's admonition that the procedural due process analysis is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances, but rather is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. Kirkland, 464 F.3d at 1192 (quoting Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924, 930, 117 S.Ct. 1807, 138 L.Ed.2d 120 (1997)); United States v. Weed, 389 F.3d 1060, 1067 (10th Cir.2004); United States v. Jones, 160 F.3d 641, 646 (10th Cir.1998). As to the first factor  impairment of the Wards' private interest  it seems self-evident that they have a significant interest in the health and success of their child-care business. However, in this case, they were not deprived of their right to operate Kids' Connection; instead, they were only subject to the temporary anxiety and potential stigma of the substantiated allegations in the Notices of Conclusions, which were eventually withdrawn by DFS without any action having been taken against their license. [I]n determining what process is due, account must be taken of the length and finality of the deprivation. Kirkland, 464 F.3d at 1192 (quoting Gilbert, 520 U.S. at 932, 117 S.Ct. 1807). In Kirkland, we held that a suspended employee who was provided with prompt post-suspension review had a diminished interest in the damage to his employment because he had the opportunity to rectify the damage quickly. Id. at 1192-93 ([A]lthough Kirkland has a private interest that will be affected by a suspension, that effect is attenuated by the relatively prompt post-suspension hearing that is provided.). Here, the Wards were similarly affected only for a relatively short period before the allegations against them were withdrawn. Although the Wards were under the cloud of the substantiated allegations for a longer period than Kirkland  approximately nine months, from the date of the first Notice of Conclusions through the Wards' final meeting with Director McDaniel where the allegations were officially withdrawn  this period was nonetheless temporary and, unlike Kirkland, their ability to run their business and earn income was never suspended. Thus, their private interest, though significant, is attenuated. The second Mathews factor  the risk of error in the procedure provided  is minimized here by the fact that the Wards took advantage of ample opportunities to alert DFS employees of their concerns before any action was taken against their license. The Wards freely admit that their complaints about DFS's allegedly improper investigation were heard by several DFS employees, up to and including the Director of DFS. [8] The availability of such review by additional employees reduces the likelihood of an erroneous deprivation of a property interest by the government. Kirkland, 464 F.3d at 1193. The fact that DFS employees concluded that the allegations should not have been substantiated and agreed to withdraw them is strong evidence that the system, in this case, worked as it was supposed to in preventing the erroneous suspension or revocation of a child care provider's license. [9] Finally, the third factor  the strength of the government's interest  supports the process utilized in this case. The government has a strong interest in acting quickly and efficiently to investigate where public health and safety are concerned, even if doing so creates a greater risk of mistakes. See Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque, 448 F.3d 1214, 1220 (10th Cir.2006) (In matters of public health and safety, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the government must act quickly. Quick action may turn out to be wrongful action, but due process requires only a postdeprivation opportunity to establish the error.). In particular, we have recognized that the government has a compelling interest in the safety and welfare of its children. J.B. v. Washington County, 127 F.3d 919, 925 (10th Cir.1997) ([C]onsiderable deference should be given to the judgment of responsible government officials in acting to protect children from perceived imminent danger or abuse.). DFS in this case investigated Kids' Connection for the purpose of protecting children. See XXX-XXX-XXX Wyo.Code R. § 2 (2002) (describing the purpose of DFS regulations as being for the protection of children in child care facilities). Requiring DFS to conduct a full-scale formal hearing prior even to notifying a provider that allegations from a complaint have been substantiated would clearly interfere with DFS's ability to act quickly to protect the public from facilities that endanger the health or welfare of children. In sum, the Mathews factors counsel against finding a procedural due process violation based on the DFS employees' refusal to provide a formal hearing, especially given that the Wards did, in fact, take advantage of ample opportunities to contest the allegations against them. Having failed to establish a constitutional violation, the Wards' procedural due process claim founders on the first step of the qualified immunity analysis. As a result, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the DFS employees on procedural due process grounds and proceed to consider the Wards' remaining claim of a substantive due process violation.