hours per week, respectively. {Id. at 62-63.) In Kansas v. Hendricks, the State represented to the Supreme Court that individuals committed under the Act at issue in that case were "receiving in the neighborhood of ‘31-1/2 hours of treatment per week.’ ” Hendriclcs, 521 U.S. at 368, 117 S.Ct. 2072. 22 . In Youngberg, the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, "civilly committed individuals 'enjoy constitutionally protected interests in conditions of reasonable care and safety, reasonably nonrestrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by these interests.’ " Strutton, 668 F.3d at 557 (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 324, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982)). 23 . See, e.g., Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) (citing Ohlinger v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775, 778
holding that the substantive component of the fourteenth amendments due process clause requires the state to provide involuntarilycommitted mental patients with such services as are necessary to ensure their reasonable safety from themselves and others holding that the confrontation clause is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the fourteenth amendment due process clause requires states to provide civillycommitted persons with access to mental health treatment that gives them a realistic opportunity to be cured and released holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause