Shontay Humphries v. Milwaukee Coun, 702 F.3d 1003

In 2008 Humphries sought renewal of her child care certification in Milwaukee County; Muniz processed the background check and learned of a 1988 substantiated finding of child abuse against Humphries.
Muniz denied Humphries’s application pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.685(4m)(a)4, knowing a determination of abuse existed, and consulted his supervisor Xiong, who approved the denial.
The denial letter on October 23, 2008 notified Humphries of the basis and her right to appeal; a hearing was held on February 5, 2009.
The hearing examiner reversed the denial on February 23, 2009, finding the presented substantiated-abuse report inadmissible hearsay and lacking foundation.
After the state agency (BMCW) overturned the 1988 finding in 2009, Muniz forwarded Humphries’s application through the process and Humphries ultimately received certification.
Humphries filed suit on December 31, 2009 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due-process violations; the district court granted summary judgment for Muniz and Xiong on qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the right to due process was clearly established.	Humphries argues due process requires pre-deprivation hearing before relying on prior abuse finding.	Muniz/Xiong contend no clearly established right prevented reliance on the preexisting finding where they had no role in the original investigation.	Not clearly established; Muniz/Xiong entitled to qualified immunity.
Whether Muniz and Xiong violated due process by relying on the 1988 finding.	Humphries claims reliance without notice or opportunity to contest violated due process.	Muniz/Xiong had no involvement in the 1988 investigation and Wisconsin law required denial when a finding existed.	No violation; qualified immunity applies.
Whether Doyle, Dupuy, Boyd clearly establish a broad rule prohibiting such post hoc reliance by officials with no investigation role.	Humphries relies on these precedents to argue post-investigation reliance is unconstitutional.	Those cases do not extend to officials with no role in the investigation.	Not clearly established; officials unconnected to original determination may rely on it.

Doyle v. Camelot Day Care Ctrs., Inc., 305 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2002) (due process inadequate when credible evidence standard and delayed hearing denied adequate process)
Duprey v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005) (requires consideration of exculpatory evidence in abuse determinations; impact on predeprivation process)
Boyd v. Owen, 481 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2007) (focus on inculpatory evidence and qualified immunity when no direct involvement in investigation)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clearly established inquiry may be resolved on basis of not clearly established right)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (standard for clearly established rights at the time of conduct)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework)
Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (clarifies qualified immunity analysis context)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (objective reasonableness standard for clearly established rights)