have a legitimate claim of entitlement which invokes procedural due process); Wright v. Califano, 587 F.2d 345, 354 (7th Cir.1978) (“[Benefit] denials do not necessarily deserve less due process than terminations.”); Daniels v. Woodbury Cnty., Iowa, 742 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1984) (refusing to distinguish between applicants and recipients when analyzing the due process requirements for determining eligibility for Iowa welfare benefits); Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1203 (9th Cir.1990) (“An applicant for social security benefits has a property interest in those benefits.”); Ressler v. Pierce, 692 F.2d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir.1982) (affirming that applicants for federal rent subsidies are entitled to due process protection); Griffeth v. Detrich, 603 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334,
holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that sovereign immunity does not protect the state from claims for statutory employment benefits that constitute a protected property interest holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment