Cir.1991) (en banc). Here, unlike in Parratt where it was impossible to predict when a prison official’s negligence may result in an inmate being deprived of his property, it was predictable that LeBeouf would be deprived of her property interest when Manning informed her that if she would not submit to the psychiatric hospitalization she must resign or be terminated. See Parratt, 451 U.S. at 541, 101 S.Ct. 1908. Moreover, it was possible for LeBeouf to have received pre-deprivation process. Indeed, Louisiana civil service law mandates that an employee in LeBeoufs position receive a pre-termination hearing, and Manning had no evidence that LeBeouf was impaired or an immediate threat to herself or others. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 137, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Lange, 56 So.3d at 930 (observing
holding regular use of process cannot constitute abuse of process holding a plaintiff cannot state a due process claim for defendants failure to follow statutory procedural requirements because a plaintiff cannot have a protect property interest in the procedure itself holding that due process does not require that parole authorities follow established procedure holding that a predeprivation opportunity to be heard satisfies the due process clause holding that predeprivation process cannot be said to be impossible when the state had an established procedure to provide such process in the particular circumstance