Opinion ID: 3065949
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Due Process Claims Against Ray and

Text: McCambridge [24] The complaint does not tie President Ray and Vice President McCambridge to the confiscation, through the policy or any other means. Unlike Martorello, these officials are not alleged to have run the department that enforced the policy or to have had any familiarity with the policy’s requirements before the confiscation. (Recall Ray’s “its news to me” response.) The averments thus do not support an inference that deliberate action or even recklessness by Ray or McCambridge caused the due process violation. Perhaps one could infer that the President and Vice President acted carelessly in presiding over subordinates who enforced an unconstitutionally standardless policy governing newspaper circulation, but even this inference would be inadequate, because negligence does not suffice for due process liability. See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328 (“The Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.”). Therefore, the complaint does not state due process claims against these defendants.