the case to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. C. The District Court Did Not Err in Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 Claim. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for violation of due process based on failure to establish facts sufficient to constitute a due process violation. We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Dana, 900 F.2d at 885. The district court assumed without deciding that the plaintiffs had a protectible life, liberty, or property interest. The court then concluded that the state remedy under 600 KAR 4:010 was adequate to remedy any perceived due process violation and that the plaintiffs therefore could not state a claim for a due process violation under the rule established in Parratt (<HOLDING>). The rule applies to both negligent and
holding parratt only applies to procedural due process claims holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding procedural due process requires that the charge must be known before the proceedings commence holding that the facts did not measure up to the standard expressed for determining procedural due process holding that privileges licenses certificates and franchises qualify as property interests for purposes of procedural due process but that due process only becomes relevant where such property is deprived