procedural due process violation in Washington

2025“To establish a procedural due process violation, the party must establish that he or she has been deprived of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to a final, not tentative, determination.” Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd., 127 Wn. App. 62 , 81, 110 P.3d 812 (2005).

2025“To establish a procedural due process violation, the party must establish that he or she has been deprived of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to a final, not tentative, determination.” Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd., 127 Wn. App. 62 , 81, 110 P.3d 812 (2005).

2025Nelson concerned a procedural due process challenge to a state statute requiring individuals with invalidated convictions to prove their innocence to recover funds paid to the State. 581 U.S. at 132-34 .

2024But Nelson performed a procedural due process analysis, so its reasoning does not support a substantive due process claim. 581 U.S. at 133-34 .

2025Id. (citing Pullman Power Prods., Inc. v. Marshall, 655 F.2d 41 , 44 (4th Cir. 1981)).

2005Pullman Power Prods., Inc. v. Marshall, 655 F.2d 41 , 44 (4th Cir. 1981).

2014Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 ( 9th Cir. 2000) ( quoting Portman, 995 F. 2d at 904 ).

2014Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Portman, 995 F.2d at 904 ).

2013Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 .

2013Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 .

2011Restraint of Bush, 164 Wash.2d 697, 706 , 193 P.3d 103 (2008)).

2011Restraint of Bush, 164 Wash.2d 697, 706 , 193 P.3d 103 (2008)).

2006As this court held, a license suspension or revocation violates due process, absent the opportunity to be heard "`at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'" Id. at 670, 91 P.3d 875 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ). ¶ 16 In determining whether the procedures under former RCW 46.20.289 and.324(1) were adequate to protect the due process interest at stake, we employed the Mathews balancing test.

2006As this court held, a license suspension or revocation violates due process, absent the opportunity to be heard “ ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” Moore, 151 Wn.2d at 670 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 ). ¶16 In determining whether the procedures under former RCW 46.20.289 and .324(1) were adequate to protect the due process interest at stake, we employed the Mathews balancing test.

2005App. 427, 431 , 726 P.2d 55 (1986). ¶47 In Sheep Mountain, we found a procedural due process violation because the earlier version of RCW 90.14.130 “failed to provide any due process prior to a termination order by DOE.” Sheep Mountain, 45 Wn.

2005App. 427, 431 , 726 P.2d 55 (1986). ¶47 In Sheep Mountain, we found a procedural due process violation because the earlier version of RCW 90.14.130 “failed to provide any due process prior to a termination order by DOE.” Sheep Mountain, 45 Wn.

1978See Blondheim v. State, supra; State v. Dixon, 78 Wn.2d 796, 805-06 , 479 P.2d 931 (1971).

1978See Blondheim v. State, supra; State v. Dixon, 78 Wn.2d 796, 805-06 , 479 P.2d 931 (1971).

2026“A procedural due process claim has two distinct elements (1) the deprivation of a 3 Br. of Appellant at 12-13 (citing Rios, 145 Wn.2d at 483 ). 4 Notably, Bella Sole fails to include a pin cite indicating the page of Rios that it believes supports its plainly inadequate argument. 12 constitutionally protected liberty or property interest and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.” Rental Hous.

2025The essence behind the procedural due process requirement is that an individual “‘in jeopardy of serious loss [be given] notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976) (brackets in original) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171-172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L. Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)); see also In re Det. of Lough, 27 Wn. App. 2d 717 , 734, 533 P.3d 1184 (2023), review denied, 2 Wn.3d 1013 (2024) (“The procedural component of the due process clause

2025The essence behind the procedural due process requirement is that an individual “‘in jeopardy of serious loss [be given] notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976) (brackets in original) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171-172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L. Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)); see also In re Det. of Lough, 27 Wn. App. 2d 717 , 734, 533 P.3d 1184 (2023), review denied, 2 Wn.3d 1013 (2024) (“The procedural component of the due process clause

2024App. 784, 798-99 , 133 P.3d 475 (2006) (holding that the petitioners’ due process challenge failed where they failed to appeal within 21 days of the building permit’s issuance even when they complained of lack of notice under the procedural due process clause), review denied, 159 Wn.2d 1005 (2007); Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 153 Wn.

2024App. 784, 798-99 , 133 P.3d 475 (2006) (holding that the petitioners’ due process challenge failed where they failed to appeal within 21 days of the building permit’s issuance even when they complained of lack of notice under the procedural due process clause), review denied, 159 Wn.2d 1005 (2007); Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 153 Wn.

2022In re Welfare of M.B., 195 Wn.2d 859, 877 , 467 P.3d 969 (2020).

2022In re Welfare of M.B., 195 Wn.2d 859, 877 , 467 P.3d 969 (2020).

2022Webb v. Washington State University, 15 Wn. App. 2d 505 , 516, 475 P.3d 1051 (2020). 14 1.

2022Webb v. Washington State University, 15 Wn. App. 2d 505 , 516, 475 P.3d 1051 (2020). 14 1.

2021In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918, 931 , 976 P.2d 113 (1999) (Washington’s termination statutes do not require a court to consider dependency guardianship as an alternative to termination where no petition has been filed). 14 III.

2021Comm’n, 149 Wn.2d 17, 24 , 65 P.3d 319 (2003)). 8 No. 81236-0-I/9 evaluating an alleged procedural due process violation, we weigh “(1) the private interest impacted by the government action; (2) ‘the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards,’ and (3) the government interest, including the additional burden that added procedural safeguards would entail.”32 Here, the first Mathews factor favors Ren because he has a fundamental interest in parenting his daughters.33 The third M

2021Comm’n, 149 Wn.2d 17, 24 , 65 P.3d 319 (2003)). 8 No. 81236-0-I/9 evaluating an alleged procedural due process violation, we weigh “(1) the private interest impacted by the government action; (2) ‘the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards,’ and (3) the government interest, including the additional burden that added procedural safeguards would entail.”32 Here, the first Mathews factor favors Ren because he has a fundamental interest in parenting his daughters.33 The third M

2021In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918, 931 , 976 P.2d 113 (1999) (Washington’s termination statutes do not require a court to consider dependency guardianship as an alternative to termination where no petition has been filed). 14 III.

2021App. 419, 425 , 309 P.3d 620 (2013)). 10 No. 81236-0-I/11 witnesses on both sides whose “live testimony” would not be beneficial to the case.38 And when Ren’s counsel told the court that he was unavailable for one of the scheduled trial days because he was moving, the trial court accommodated his schedule.

2021App. at 673 (to show a procedural due process violation from denial of a continuance, a parent must demonstrate specific prejudice or that the outcome of trial would have been different) (citing In re Welfare of R.H., 176 Wn.