Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05729/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05729-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FREDERICK BATES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-05729 NC 

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL 

BRIEFING REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS 

CLAIM 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 19 

 In this constitutional case, plaintiff Bates has alleged a violation of his due process 

rights. Two issues require additional briefing. 

 The first issue is whether Bates is bringing a substantive due process claim or a 

procedural due process claim, or both. He must state the constitutional right he has been 

deprived of by the Defendants’ failure to investigate his claims of misconduct in his 2006 

trial. He must submit a brief not to exceed three pages by May 31, 2016. 

 Second, in their motion to dismiss the complaint, Defendants argue that Bates’ due 

process claim must fail because it alleges a violation of City ordinances, not federal law. 

Dkt. No. 16 at 16. Defendants state that Bates fails to allege facts supporting a federal 

civil rights action because the complaint “allege[s] violations of the policies, ordinances, 

and other provisions of the City of San Jose. . . . Instead of the laws of the United States.” 

Id. This argument needs further explanation. Liberty and property interests that qualify 

for protection under the Due Process Clause include real property, entitlements, and liberty 

Case 5:15-cv-05729-NC Document 36 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

interests, including rights of free movement, association, and speech. Vasquez v. 

Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1025, 1042 (9th Cir. 2013). A state statute can provide a 

“protectable entitlement” and thereby provide an avenue for a substantive due process 

claim. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 12 (1979); 

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986) (a protectable entitlement 

“may arise from either of two sources: the due process clause itself or state law”). If a 

state or city creates an entitlement but subsequently denies citizens access to that 

entitlement without due process of law, then it violates the Due Process clause. See e.g., 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (holding that a Nebraska statute created a liberty 

interest protected by due process guarantees). State law that can create an entitlement 

includes a city’s ordinances and policies. Wedges/Ledges of California, Inc. v. City of 

Phoenix, Ariz., 24 F.3d 56, 63 (9th Cir. 1994) (“the provisions of the Phoenix City Code 

create an articulable standard sufficient to give rise to a legitimate claim of entitlement”) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted). Defendants are ordered to file additional 

briefing addressing this issue. They must submit a brief not to exceed three pages by May 

31, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2016 _____________________________________ 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:15-cv-05729-NC Document 36 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FREDERICK BATES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-05729-NC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on May 24, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Frederick Bates 

1235 Muirkirk Ct. 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Dated: May 24, 2016 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Lili Harrell, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 

Case 5:15-cv-05729-NC Document 36 Filed 05/23/16 Page 3 of 3