Whether Petitioner's due process rights were violated when the lower federal courts barred Petitioner's claim by applying preclusive effect to the very proceedings in which the underlying due process infirmities occurred

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Kansas state banking authorities closed Petitioner’s bank and seized and quickly disposed of the bank’s assets based on an interpretation of Kansas banking law never before applied in the over 100 year history of the statutes at issue. The state administrative officer gave Petitioner no notice that he intended to apply this novel interpretation. In the post-deprivation hearing (provided only after ordered by a court), this initial due process infirmity was compounded by the courts’ refusal to allow Petitioner to conduct basic discovery — including the deposition of the sole state decisionmaker. In Petitioner’s subsequent § 1983 lawsuit, the lower federal courts ratified these constitutional deprivations by giving the infected proceedings below preclusive effect through the doctrine of res judicata, a ruling at conflict with at least three other circuit courts of appeals decisions and decisions of this Court. Against this backdrop, the Questions Presented are: 1) Whether Petitioner’s due process rights were violated when the lower federal courts barred Petitioner’s claim — alleging due process violations on account of the failure to afford Petitioner the basics of notice and an opportunity to be heard — by applying preclusive effect to the very proceedings in which the underlying due process infirmities occurred. 2) Whether the failure to provide notice of the governing legal standards and permit basic discovery in a post-deprivation hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ii PARTIES AND