Elliott v. Martinez, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7096

Plaintiffs Elliott, Evaro, and Hernandez were targets of a Doña Ana County grand jury investigation and received NM target notices.
Notice requirements under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-11(C) include crime description, rights to silence and counsel, and right to testify after a specified interval.
Plaintiffs were in custody when notices were issued and allege notices were untimely.
Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 procedural-due-process claim arguing notice compliance creates a liberty interest.
District Court dismissed, holding NM notice does not establish a due-process liberty interest.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirms that state notice creates no protected liberty interest under due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NM notice creates a protected liberty interest under due process.	Elliott asserts notice creates entitlement.	Martinez contends notice is only procedural, not substantive.	No liberty interest created; only a procedural right.

Thompson v. Kentucky Dept. of Corr., 490 U.S. 454 (1989) (two-prong test for state-created liberty interests (substantive predicates and mandatory outcomes))
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) ( Due Process two-step inquiry; life/liberty/property interest first)
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests are created by state law, not the Constitution)
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983) (process is not an end in itself; entitlement requires substantive predicates and mandatory outcomes)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interests depend on substantial hardship beyond ordinary confinement)
James v. Rowlands, 606 F.3d 646 (2010) (state-created interests must rise to a protected liberty interest)
Pusey v. City of Youngstown, 11 F.3d 652 (1993) (notice-procedures alone do not create liberty interests without mandated outcomes)
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (procedural guarantees do not automatically create liberty interests)