Neuber v. Pritt, 6:15-cv-00833

Background

Jonathan Neuber (pro se) alleged Benton County probation officers enforced no-contact and relocation conditions that interfered with his intimate/familial association with Lori Lemhouse, who later died by overdose.
Neuber had prior drug and assault convictions; post-prison supervision included an explicit no-contact condition with the assault victim (Lemhouse).
Probation officers Pickerd and Pritt supervised Neuber and directed him to move out of Lemhouse's home; officer Smith discovered Neuber hiding in Lemhouse’s closet during a residence check and assessed a violation that led to a four-day jail sanction (waived hearing/appeal).
Neuber alleged selective enforcement (he and Lemhouse were treated more harshly than similarly situated probationers), failure to accommodate Lemhouse’s disability, and that probation restrictions prevented him from being with Lemhouse before her suicide.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on multiple grounds (failure to state a protected liberty interest, absolute and qualified immunity, and issue preclusion).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants violated Neuber's Fourteenth Amendment right to familial/ intimate association	No-contact orders and relocation deprived Neuber of his liberty interest in living with/ associating with his long-term partner/fiancée	Conditions were related to criminal convictions (protecting assault victim and preventing drug crimes); limits on association are permissible during supervision	Court: No due process violation; state interests outweigh Neuber's asserted interest and he failed to show an absolute protected right to cohabit in these circumstances
Whether defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for imposing/ enforcing supervision conditions	Neuber argued officers’ actions violated constitutional rights	Defendants argued parole/probation condition-setting and revocation are quasi-judicial functions entitled to immunity	Court: Absolute immunity applies to actions involving imposition/execution of parole/supervision conditions; bars §1983 damages claim
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	Neuber argued officers acted unreasonably and violated clearly established rights	Defendants argued it was not clearly established that engagement or cohabitation was a protected right invalidating supervision conditions; officers could not reasonably know they violated a clearly established right	Court: Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established law showing the alleged interference violated a clearly established constitutional right
Whether other preclusion or procedural bars support summary judgment	Neuber contended his claims survived summary judgment	Defendants argued issue preclusion and related defenses warranted judgment	Court: Also granted summary judgment on issue preclusion grounds

Key Cases Cited

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (limits and history guide substantive due process family-association claims)
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993) (functional test for extending absolute immunity beyond judges)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (judicial immunity doctrine)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step and court discretion on sequencing)
United States v. Wold Child, 699 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (balancing familial-association rights against countervailing state interests)
Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) ("shocks the conscience" standard for substantive due process)
Kruse v. Hawai'i, 68 F.3d 331 (9th Cir. 1995) (parental and familial rights are not absolute)
Jeffries v. Turkey Run Consol. Sch. Dist., 492 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1974) (substantive due process requires showing impairment of life, liberty, or property)