may arise in both the inverse condemnation action and the procedural due process action, the overlap pertains, at most, to the issue of damages, and is therefore not sufficiently substantial to bar present litigation of the procedural due process action. See Harris v. County of Riverside, 904 F.2d 497, 501 (9th Cir.1990) (allowing a procedural due process claim to proceed even though it could be found that a consequence of the lack of notice was an incorrect zoning decision on the part of the County, the subject of the unripe takings claim). We analyze Moreno’s substantive due process, procedural due process, and Fourth Amendment claims without regard to Williamson. 2. Substantive Due Process Under Armendariz, Moreno’s substantive due process claim cannot go forward. 75 F.3d at 1324 (<HOLDING>). Moreno fails to allege any conduct on the
holding that where a particular amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior that amendment not the more generalized notion of substantive due process must be the guide for analyzing these claims  holding that there is no due process right to appellate review recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding that a substantive due process challenge is unavailable where there is an explicit textual source of constitutional protection holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution