Opinion ID: 46231
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: State and Federal Procedural Due Process Claims against the MRHA and Murphy

Text: 85 Plaintiffs seeking protection under the federal Due Process Clause must first establish that they have a protected property interest. See Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); see also American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 119 S.Ct. 977, 989, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999) (The first inquiry in every due process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in `property' or `liberty.'). The Mississippi Due Process Clause, although worded differently from the Federal version, is implemented identically. Compare U.S. Const. amend. XIV with Miss. Const. Art. III, § 14; see also Tucker v. Hinds County, 558 So.2d 869, 873 (Miss.1990). 86 We must first, then, identify which of the plaintiff's protected property interests, if any, were violated without due process, and, because the Constitution protects rather than creates such property interests, their existence must be determined by reference to `rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.' Phillips v. Washington Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 1930, 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998) (quoting Roth, 92 S.Ct. at 2709); see also Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2077, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976) ([T]he sufficiency of the claim of entitlement must be decided by reference to state law.). 87 Urban Developers alleged that three unique property interests were violated by the MRHA. First, they alleged that the MRHA deprived Urban Developers of its property interest in the HAP contracts when the MRHA breached those contracts by failing to conduct formal inspections and allowing the plaintiff time to make repairs. Because we have held, supra, that Urban Developers had no such contractual rights under Mississippi law, Urban Developers could not have been deprived of the HAP contracts (or rights thereunder) without due process. 88 Urban Developers' second due process claim was that the MRHA deprived Urban Developers of its property interest in the ACC contract between the Housing Authority and HUD, as well as its interest in HUD regulations which the ACC contracts reference. Because we agree with the cases which hold that landlords are not third-party beneficiaries of the ACC contract, and because this court has already held that landlords are not within the zone-of-interest of the HUD regulations, Urban Developers could not have been deprived without due process of any interest in the ACC contracts or the relevant HUD regulations. 17 89 Finally, Urban Developers' third due process claim was that the MRHA deprived them of their interest in their lease contracts with the Town Creek tenants. Because we have held, supra, that Urban Developers failed to pursue a post-deprivation remedy, which they have not shown to be unavailable under Mississippi law, we reject this final due process claim as unripe. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Dep't of Ins., 62 F.3d 115, 118 (5th Cir. 1995) (The second claim, denial of procedural due process, falls with the [takings] claim. The procedural due process claim fails because Liberty Mutual has not demonstrated that Louisiana does not offer a post-deprivation remedy ...). Accordingly, we reverse the district court's denial of the MRHA and Murphy's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the two procedural due process claims relating to an alleged property interest in the Mod Rehab Contract and the Annual Contribution Contract. Because we lack subject matter jurisdiction, we dismiss without prejudice the procedural due process claim relating to a property interest in the lease contracts with the Town Creek tenants.