For that reason alone, the Court finds that Count II fails to state a claim for substantive due process violations against Defendant Rossignol upon which relief can be granted. See Progeny v. City of Wichita, Kan., Case No. 6:21-CV-01100-EFM-ADM, 2022 WL 93406, at *15 (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2022) (dismissing substantive due process claim implicating right to free association because it was more appropriately analyzed under the First Amendment); Yazzie v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Rio Arriba Cnty., No.

For that reason alone, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of Count II (to the extent it is premised upon the YouTube-related allegations). See Progeny v. City of Wichita, Kan., Case No. 6:21-CV-01100-EFM-ADM, 2022 WL 93406, at *15 (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2022) (dismissing substantive due process claim implicating right to free association because it was more appropriately analyzed under the First Amendment); Yazzie v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Rio Arriba Cnty., No. CIV 15-109 JAP/SCY, 2015 WL 13651028, at *6 (D.N.M. Oct. 22, 2015)

, district courts within the circuit have and adopted similar reasoning.See Progeny v. City of Wichita, Kan., No. 6:21-CV-01100-EFM-ADM, 2022 WL 93406, at *8 (D. Kan. January 10, 2022) (concluding that spending resources to assist individuals designated as gang members on the gang list was within the ordinary interest of the organization in line with the organization's goals to “empower young people . . . [in] contact with the criminal justice system and provide . . . [them] with counseling and support,” and therefore the injury was insufficient to establish standing); Hernandez v. Monarch Real Est. Corp., No. CIV 08-732 MCA/WPL, 2009 WL 10707040, at *9 (D.N.M. Aug. 27, 2009) (relying in part on Second and D.C. Circuit case law to conclude that an organization plaintiff must show the defendant's action “caused [it] to deviate from its normal day-to-day operations,” which a fair housing organization fails to do when its operations “already consist[ed] of receiving complaints . . . and investigating them through interviews and tests.”);

Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1203 (10th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (dismissing substantive due process claims that “are more precisely addressed under the Fourth Amendment”); Progeny v. City of Wichita, Kan., No. 6:21-CV-01100-EFM-ADM, 2022 WL 93406, at *14-15 (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2022) (dismissing substantive due process claim based on various alleged constitutional violations including ones that allegedly occurred during “[e]ncounters with law enforcement, searches of property, and arrests” because those types of alleged constitutional violations “all fall within the explicit terms of” the Fourth Amendment and “claims relating to these alleged violations must therefore be considered under a Fourth Amendment framework, rather than the more general standards of substantive due process”); see also Hirt v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 287, No. 2:17-CV-02279-HLT, 2018 WL 6326412, at *7 (D. Kan. Dec. 4, 2018) (granting summary judgment against substantive due process claims because plaintiff's “First Amendment claim under Count I subsumes any such claim”).