Leen v. Thomas, 708 F. App'x 331

Plaintiffs Irvine and Aleta Leen appealed the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of their fourth amended complaint challenging actions related to their California water license/change application.
The district court dismissed procedural and substantive due-process claims, finding no constitutionally protected property interest in the water license or its amendment, and apparently dismissed an equal-protection claim without discussion.
The Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviewed only the dismissal order and record below.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court failed to address the equal-protection claim and did not consider several issues left open by its property-interest ruling.
On remand the district court is directed to explain its dismissal of the equal-protection claim, reassess whether the Leens have a protected property interest (including whether a change-of-diversion application differs from a license), and consider both procedural and substantive due-process elements and qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court properly dismissed equal-protection claim	Leens contended they plausibly pleaded equal-protection violation	Defendants relied on district court dismissal (no discussion detailed)	Vacated; district court must address and explain dismissal of equal-protection claim on remand
Whether Leens have a constitutionally protected property interest in water license/change application	Leens argued California water license (or change application) is a protected property interest	Defendants argued no property interest exists so due-process claims fail	Vacated; court should consider whether license or change application is a protected interest (citing Morongo)
Whether Leens stated procedural and substantive due-process claims	Leens alleged deprivation without process and conscience-shocking official conduct	Defendants argued lack of property interest and insufficient facts for substantive due process	Vacated; district court must assess both procedural and substantive elements separately and whether conduct "shocks the conscience"
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	Leens argued violations were actionable; challenged immunity	Defendants argued qualified immunity applies because law not clearly established	Court did not decide; on remand district court should consider whether any asserted right was clearly established (need particularized precedent)

Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (vacatur/remand principle for issues not addressed below)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (clarifying that "clearly established" law must be particularized)
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (qualified immunity framework)
Gerhart v. Lake Cty., 637 F.3d 1013 (Ninth Circuit discussion relevant to equal protection/qualified immunity)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 45 Cal.4th 731 (state-law recognition that a California water license may be a protectable property interest)
Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of Los Angeles, 729 F.3d 1189 (distinguishing procedural and substantive due-process requirements; "shocks the conscience")
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (substantive due process requires conscience-shocking conduct)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (requirement that existing precedent place legal question beyond debate for qualified immunity)