deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest. Therefore, to state a claim for a violation of substantive due process, Plaintiffs must first prove the deprivation of a constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property interest, and then identify an official action that caused the constitutional deprivation. See Johnson v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 930 F.Supp. 276, 285 (S.D.Tex.1996) (citing Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 935 (5th Cir.1995)). If Plaintiffs successfully identify a property interest that has been deprived due to an ordinance enacted under the auspices of a municipality’s police power, Plaintiffs then carry the burden of proving the ordinance’s invalidity. See Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520, 529, 79 S.Ct. 962, 967, 3 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1959) (<HOLDING>); Price v. City of Junction, 711 F.2d 582, 588
holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the second amendment constrains state and local laws through its incorporation under the fourteenth amendment due process clause holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment