the prosecutor. (Hr’g Tr. Vol. I at 198.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown to this Court that they have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim of denial of due process. (ii) Constitutionally Protected Liberty Interest Plaintiffs also allege that they have liberty interests; i.e., the freedom to engage in their chosen business and fund-raising activities, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that Defendants’ interference with their right to engage in that business is arbitrary and thus unconstitutional. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants deprived them of their liberty interests without due process. To prevail on their procedural due process claim in this § 1983 action, Plaintiffs must show: (1) that they have a life, liberty, or property interest protecte 3) (<HOLDING>); Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473 (9th
holding that harassment and delay in plaintiffs attempt to obtain a barbers license constitutes a due process violation of the plaintiffs liberty interest in the pursuit of that occupation holding that civil commitment for any purpose constitutes significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection holding that the plaintiff owner of a restaurantbar stated a cause of action for deprivation of a liberty interest by alleging that the defendant city engaged in a campaign of harassment that infringed on the plaintiffs constitutional right to pursue an occupation recognizing that a parents liberty interest in the custody of a child is subject to due process protection holding that the allegations of plaintiffs coemployees of sexual harassment by manager were irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment