We may properly take judicial notice of this policy. See Booze v. Wetzel, Civil Action No. 1:CV-13-cv-2139, 2014 WL 65283, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2014) (taking judicial notice of DC-ADM 802); Carter, 2012 WL 1414446, at *1 n.1 (same); Bowen v. Ryan, No. 3:05CV1512, 2006 WL 3437287, at *8 n.1 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006) (same).
Similarly, "[a] procedural due process analysis involves a two-step inquiry: (1) does the complaining party have a protected liberty or property interest and, if so, (2) does the available process comport with all constitutional requirements." Bowen v. Ryan, 2006 WL 3437287 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 29, 2006), aff'd, 248 F. App'x 302 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000). Plaintiff alleges that his detention for the additional two months after the policy change "was a violation of both substantive and procedural due process."
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1. "[A] procedural due process analysis involves a two step inquiry: (1) does the complaining party have a protected liberty or property interest and, if so, (2) does the available process comport with all constitutional requirements." Bowen v. Ryan, 2006 WL 3437287 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006), aff'd, 248 F.App'x 302 (3d Cir. 2007); see alsoShoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000). Whether a legitimate entitlement exists is a question of state law.
"[A] procedural due process analysis involves a two step inquiry: (1) does the complaining party have a protected liberty or property interest and, if so, (2) does the available process comport with all constitutional requirements." Bowen v. Ryan, 2006 WL 3437287 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006) aff'd, 248 Fed. Appx. 302 (3d Cir. 2007); see alsoShoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000). To have a property interest in a job, "a person must have more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment; rather, she must have a legitimate entitlement to such continued employment."
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1. "[A] procedural due process analysis involves a two step inquiry: (1) does the complaining party have a protected liberty or property interest and, if so, (2) does the available process comport with all constitutional requirements." Bowen v. Ryan, 2006 WL 3437287 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006)aff'd, 248 F.App'x 302 (3d Cir. 2007); see alsoShoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000). In Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit discussed a post-deprivation due process claim and stated, "the due process violation 'is not complete when the deprivation occurs; it is not complete unless and until the State fails to provide due process.'
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1. "[A] procedural due process analysis involves a two step inquiry: (1) does the complaining party have a protected liberty or property interest and, if so, (2) does the available process comport with all constitutional requirements." Bowen v. Ryan, 2006 WL 3437287 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006), aff'd, 248 F.App'x 302 (3d Cir. 2007); see alsoShoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000). To have a property interest in a job, "a person must have more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment; rather, she must have a legitimate entitlement to such continued employment."
An individual states a claim for a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights where he asserts that he has a protected liberty or property interest and the available process for protecting that interest does not comport with constitutional requirements. See Bowen v. Ryan, Civ. No. 05-cv-1512, 2006 WL 3437287, *11 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006) (citing Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000)).
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1. "[A] procedural due process analysis involves a two step inquiry: (1) does the complaining party have a protected liberty or property interest and, if so, (2) does the available process comport with all constitutional requirements." Bowen v. Ryan, 2006 WL 3437287 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006) aff'd, 248 F.App'x 302 (3d Cir. 2007); see alsoShoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000). First, it must be determined whether plaintiff had a protected property interest in the superintendent position, and if so, the second step of the due process analysis is considered to determine whether the process available to plaintiff met constitutional requirements.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1. "[A] procedural due process analysis involves a two step inquiry: (1) does the complaining party have a protected liberty or property interest and, if so, (2) does the available process comport with all constitutional requirements." Bowen v. Ryan, 2006 WL 3437287 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006) aff'd, 248 F.App'x 302 (3d Cir. 2007); see alsoShoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000). To have a property interest in a job, "a person must have more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment; rather, she must have a legitimate entitlement to such continued employment."
Similarly, "[a] procedural due process analysis involves a two-step inquiry: (1) does the complaining party have a protected liberty or property interest and, if so, (2) does the available process comport with all constitutional requirements." Bowen v. Ryan, 2006 WL 3437287 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 29, 2006), aff'd, 248 F. App'x 302 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000) ("Shoats I"). As this Court noted in its adjudication of Defendants' motion to dismiss, Shoatz's claim is determined by reference to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's decision in Shoats I.