Court Opinion

ID: 9462829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:51:24.220017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:48.537945
License: Public Domain

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result but cannot concur in much of the supportive reasoning. I am particularly disturbed by the discussion of thé decision of the Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405, 44 LW 4337. The statement that, “the governmental action complained of must deprive the petitioner of a right which has its genesis in state law, and the protective shield of 1983 extends only to those interests” is followed by quotation *392from Paul v. Davis which omits its footnote 5, at 710, 96 S.Ct. at 1165, 44 LW at 4342. That footnote reads:
“There are other interests, of course, protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State, but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been ‘incorporated’ into the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1983 makes a deprivation of such rights actionable independently of state law. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961).”
I agree with the quoted footnote and am fearful that its omission may lead to a misunderstanding of the extent of the rights protected by § 1983.
Judge BARRETT expresses his agreement with the observations contained herein interpretive of Paul v. Davis, supra.