liberty interest exists, the second inquiry is “whether the procedures followed by the government in depriving [the inmate] of that interest comported with due process of law.” Elliott, 675 F.3d at 1244 (quotation omitted). 1. Deprivation of Procedural Due Process in Termination from the SOTMP Mr. Firth contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claim that they violated his due process rights in terminating him from the SOTMP. As we have noted, defendants did not dispute in the district court that Mr. Firth has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the receipt of SOTMP treatment, such that procedural due process was required before that interest could be deprived. See Beebe v. Heil, 333 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1017 (D.Colo.2004) (<HOLDING>). Defendants explain that, “[a]s a result of
holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith  holding inmate sentenced under the 1998 act enjoys liberty interest in receiving mandatory sex offender treatment and is entitled to due process protections before treatment can be withheld holding convicted sex offender had not been deprived of liberty interest for purposes of procedural due process challenge to sorp holding that the due process clause permits the state to involuntarily treat a prison inmate who is seriously mentally ill if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest holding that youthful offender treatment is not a fundamental right