Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1019
1020 HUMPHRIES v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Before: Jay S. Bybee and Milan D. Smith, Jr.,
Circuit Judges, and Richard Mills,* District Judge.
*The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for
the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
1024 HUMPHRIES v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
COUNSEL
ORDER
OPINION
II. ANALYSIS
a. Stigma
b. Plus
a. Private Interest
b. Governmental Interest
First, we note that by the time the decision maker has refer-
enced the CACI and become charged with undertaking an
additional investigation, the individual liberty interest in
avoiding stigma and alteration of a legal right has already
occurred. Of course, the Due Process Clause does not always
require the state to offer process to a person prior to the depri-
vation of a liberty interest, see Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S.
924, 930 (1997), but we note for purposes of determining the
adequacy of the process offered by Appellees—additional
HUMPHRIES v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1065
investigation of a CACI listing to determine if a person should
receive a government benefit—is the very type of interference
with a liberty interest that an innocent person listed on the
CACI seeks to avoid.
d. Balancing
B. Qualified Immunity
C. Monell Liability
III. CONCLUSION