In Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) 545 U.S. 748, "the ultimate issue" was whether state law gave to the plaintiff a protectable property interest, for purposes of Fourteenth Amendment remedies. (Castle Rock, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 756.) "That determination, despite its state-law underpinnings, is ultimately one of federal constitutional law. 'Although the underlying substantive interest is created by "an independent source such as state law," federal constitutional law determines whether that interest rises to the level of a "legitimate claim of entitlement" protected by the Due Process Clause.' Resolution of the federal issue begins, however, with a determination of what it is that state law provides." (Castle Rock, supra, 545 U.S. 748, 756-757.) There, the court also expressed and explained "our continuing reluctance to treat the Fourteenth Amendment as ' "a font of tort law" ' " (id. at p. 768), while recognizing that the states have the power to provide plaintiff-victims with personally enforceable remedies (id. at pp. 765-768 but noting there was no existing statutory right of a "'protected person'" to enforce a domestic violence restraining order).