Legal Opinion

Saad El Wardany v. City of San Jacinto

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 19, 2013No. 11-55879UnpublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Lemon v. KurtzmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. (PC) Rouser v. KhripachDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
  2. American Kitchen Delights, Inc. v. City Of HarveyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2025
  3. Pine Valley House Resort, LLC v. NewsomDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API