Saad El Wardany v. City of San Jacinto

MEMORANDUM

Saad El Wardany appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of San Jacinto on each of his claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and now affirm.

There can be no procedural due process violation without a protected property or liberty interest and, under state law, Wardany has no legally protected interest in any particular level of accessibility to the street in front of his store, let alone continuous, unrestricted and unmodified access. Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577-78 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Edüd 548 (1972); People v. Ayon, 54 Cal.2d 217, 222-24 , 5 Cal.Rptr. 151 , 352 P.2d 519 (1960). Wardany’s store remains accessible in a variety of ways; the only change effected by the median’s construction is that a direct lefthand turn into his property is no longer possible. Even if such an interest were cognizable, Wardany was not entitled to individualized notice and a hearing, because he was just one of many affected property owners along the stretch of road subject to the new median, and he was not “exceptionally affected.” Harris v. Cnty. of Riverside, 904 F.2d 497, 502 (9th Cir.1990).…