Opinion ID: 579811
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Reinstate License

Text: 22 House of Hope alleges that Smith failed to reinstate its license in a timely fashion after the administrative law judge's proposed decision rejected the bulk of the charges levelled against House of Hope and found that reissuance of House of Hope's license would be consonant with the public welfare. Neither Thomas nor Smith addresses this issue in her affidavit. 23 This charge does not amount to a clear violation of House of Hope's constitutional rights. House of Hope does not allege or evidence in any way that Smith had the authority to re-issue a license or that she played any role in the licensing process. The California Community Care Facilities Act places sole authority for the issuance of licenses in the hands of the State Department of Social Services. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1509. 24 Because the House of Hope has not alleged that Smith had the authority to re-issue a license to House of Hope and because House of Hope ha[s] not pleaded one shred of evidence in support of [its] conclusory allegations of conspiracy, we hold that Smith is entitled to qualified immunity on this count. Malachowski v. City of Keene, 787 F.2d 704, 712 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 828 (1986).