Civil Rights — procedural due process

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — procedural due process

There is no liberty interest in working as a tax consultant.

“As a necessary component of a procedural due process claim, Santana must identify a protected property or liberty interest. Kahn v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519, 527 (7th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 754 (2011). Santana asserts both. He claims a protected property interest in his private employment assisting taxpayers prepare submissions to the Board. To have a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, however, Santana must have ‘more than a unilateral expectation of [the claimed interest]. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.’ Id. (quoting Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)). An entitlement of that magnitude arises when ‘statutes[,] regulations [or a contract] . . . establish a framework of factual conditions delimiting entitlements which are capable of being explored at a due process hearing.’ Id. (quoting Fincher v. South Bend Heritage Found., 606 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 2010)). Santana has not alleged anything of the sort. He does not point to any statute, regulation, or contract that suggests his work as a consultant for private clients might be a constitutionally protected property interest and so that part of his claim ends here.”

Affirmed.

11-2103 Santana v. Cook County Board of Review

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Shadur, J., Tinder, J.