C. M. v. Urbina, 640 F. App'x 825

Background

C.M., a registered sex offender on long-term probation, was required to undergo sex-offense therapy and to disclose his offender status to partners; he tested positive for HIV (2005) and repeatedly for chlamydia (2006), reports of which were made to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).
CDPHE sought to locate and manage C.M.; he refused to sign releases allowing CDPHE to share his HIV status with his treatment provider and probation officer and declined the counselor’s demand for such a release, so counseling was not begun.
CDPHE issued a counseling order, then a cease-and-desist order directing C.M. to cease nondisclosure to partners, use condoms, and receive counseling; CDPHE pursued enforcement in state court and obtained an order permitting limited information exchange about his HIV status and compliance.
CDPHE employees disclosed C.M.’s HIV status and related allegations to his treatment provider (Aurora Mental Health), leading to his discharge; probation officers then filed revocation complaints, resulting in two arrests and jail time before the state court dismissed one complaint and later C.M. resumed treatment with a different provider.
C.M. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against public-health officials (claiming violations of First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights—freedom of association, privacy, and due process) and probation officers (claiming omission of exculpatory facts in revocation affidavits violated Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments); the district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the defendants violated clearly established rights and affirmed dismissal, holding C.M. failed to show the relevant rights were clearly established in these factual circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CDPHE referrals/enforcement violated freedom of association (choice of younger partners)	Lawrence put officials on notice that attempts to interfere with private consensual relationships are unlawful	Referrals/enforcement furthered public health interests and did not actually prohibit partner choice	Not clearly established that counseling/referral or enforcement violated association rights; qualified immunity affirmed
Whether CDPHE’s suit violated due process (malicious prosecution theory)	CDPHE brought suit without competent evidence, infringing due process	CDPHE relied on reports and obtained state-court relief; bringing suit was not clearly unreasonable	No clearly established due-process violation shown; qualified immunity affirmed
Whether attempts/disclosures constituted unlawful waiver or disclosure of medical privacy (HIV status)	Forcing/compelling waiver or disclosing medical info violated privacy rights	Colorado statutes and the court order permitted limited disclosure for public-health enforcement	Disclosures and attempts to obtain releases were not clearly unlawful under the statutes and court order; qualified immunity affirmed
Whether probation officers’ omission of exculpatory facts in revocation affidavits deprived C.M. of rights	Officers failed to disclose that C.M. was improperly discharged from treatment, rendering affidavits misleading	C.M. was out of compliance with treatment requirement; omissions were immaterial to probable cause	Alleged omissions immaterial given lack of compliance; no clearly established violation; qualified immunity affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (privacy and liberty in private consensual adult sexual conduct)
Herring v. Keenan, 218 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2000) (privacy protections for HIV status disclosures and limits on probationer rights)
Stewart v. Donges, 915 F.2d 572 (10th Cir. 1990) (knowingly omitting material information from affidavits violates rights)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established law cannot be defined at high level of generality)