John Champagne, Jr. v. the City and County of San Fra

ORDER and MEMORANDUM

This case is resubmitted as of the date of this memorandum.

Summary judgment was appropriate in this case, as was the denial of sanctions; however, we reverse the award of attorneys’ fees.

Federal Due Process Claim

Even assuming that Champagne possesses the constitutional right he asserts, he has failed to offer proof that the Defendants violated it. Defendants simply revoked code violation determinations to which Champagne had no entitlement. In addition, the state court had dismissed the cause of action that was based on the alleged code violations before the alleged improprieties took place. After the determinations were revoked, Champagne was in the same position he had been in before the Defendants made them. The district court correctly granted summary judgment on the due process claim.

On appeal, Champagne alleges two new constitutional violations. However, “[t]he parties cannot raise new issues on appeal to secure a reversal of the lower court’s summary judgment determination.” BankAmerica Pension Plan v. McMath, 206 F.3d 821, 825 (9th Cir.2000). We do not consider these new claims.

State Law Claims

In his opening brief, Champagne states that he…