Piecknick v. Comwlth. of PA ( 1994 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    1994 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    9-30-1994
    Piecknick v. Comwlth. of PA, et al.
    Precedential or Non-Precedential:
    Docket 93-3002
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1994
    Recommended Citation
    "Piecknick v. Comwlth. of PA, et al." (1994). 1994 Decisions. Paper 149.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1994/149
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1994 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 94-3002
    ___________
    FRED PIECKNICK; DOROTHY PIECKNICK and
    DAN PIECKNICK, trading and doing
    business as Piecknick Towing
    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; PENNSYLVANIA STATE
    POLICE; COLONEL GLENN WALP, individually and in his
    capacity as Commander of Pennsylvania State Police;
    CAPTAIN THOMAS BERRYHILL, individually and in his
    capacity as Commander of Troop S; SERGEANT DUANE
    DURHAM, individually and in his capacity
    as an officer of Troop S
    FERDINAND W. AND DOROTHY PIECKNICK
    AND DAN PIECKNICK TRADING AND DOING
    BUSINESS AS PIECKNICK TOWING,
    Appellants
    ___________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 93-cv-00393)
    ___________
    Argued:   June 23, 1994
    PRESENT:   BECKER and HUTCHINSON, Circuit Judges,
    and PADOVA, District Judge*
    (Filed:   September 30, 1994)
    ____________
    _______________
    *   Hon. John R. Padova, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    Peter M. Suwak, Esquire              (Argued)
    Pete's Surplus Building
    P.O. Box #1
    Washington, PA     15301
    Attorney for Appellants
    Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Esquire
    Attorney General
    Calvin R. Koons, Esquire
    Senior Deputy Attorney General
    John G. Knorr, III, Esquire
    Chief Deputy Attorney General
    Gloria A. Tischuk, Esquire           (Argued)
    Deputy Attorney General
    Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania
    Fourth Floor
    Manor Complex
    564 Forbes Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA     15219
    Attorneys for Appellees
    ____________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    ____________
    HUTCHINSON, Circuit Judge.
    Appellants, Fred, Dorothy and Dan Piecknick, operators
    of Piecknick Towing (collectively "Piecknick"), appeal an order
    of the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Pennsylvania dismissing their complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule
    of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon
    which relief can be granted.    In their complaint, Piecknick
    alleged that appellees, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the
    Pennsylvania State Police, and several officials of the State
    Police1 (collectively the "State Police"), deprived them of due
    1
    . The officers sued in their official and individual capacities
    were: Glen Walp, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police;
    process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when the
    State Police awarded towing jobs on state highways to a towing
    service which Piecknick alleges was not authorized to receive
    those jobs under a State Police assigned zone towing policy.2
    Piecknick's complaint sought damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A.
    § 1983 (West 1981).
    We hold that the facts alleged in Piecknick's complaint
    fail to set out a deprivation of a property or liberty interest
    under the Fourteenth Amendment.   Therefore, we will affirm the
    order of the district court, but on different reasoning.
    I.    Factual & Procedural History
    Count I of Piecknick's complaint asserted a civil
    rights claim under section 1983 based upon a deprivation of due
    process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.3 It alleged
    (..continued)
    Captain Thomas Berryhill, of Troop S in Washington County where
    Piecknick is located; and Sergeant Duane Durham, also with
    Troop S.
    2
    . Piecknick also alleged a due process violation under the
    Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed that claim because
    there was no federal government action. Piecknick does not
    appeal the dismissal of this claim.
    3
    . Count II alleged a pendent state law claim for harassment and
    intentional interference with business opportunity.
    Specifically, it alleged that the State Police intentionally
    called another towing company to service disabled vehicles
    knowing Piecknick was entitled to such business under its policy
    and practice, falsely asserted towing jobs had requirements
    Piecknick did not meet in order to disqualify it, failed to
    cooperate with Piecknick concerning traffic control at the scene,
    and threatened to arrest Piecknick at the scene without
    justification. We need only address Count I's section 1983
    claim, as it provides the only possible basis for federal
    jurisdiction.
    that the State Police established a rotational policy and heavy
    duty service list with specific zones (Zones 1-3) specifying
    which towing company would be contacted to remove vehicles from
    accident scenes on interstate highways in Washington County,
    Pennsylvania.   It also alleged that the State Police had
    established a policy and practice of limiting the assignment of
    towing services to a designated operator to only one zone.
    Piecknick is located in Washington County and was assigned to
    Zone 1.   A map outlining the zones as they existed for the past
    four years and designating the operators in each zone was
    attached to the complaint.
    The complaint alleged Insana Towing ("Insana"), a
    competitor, was assigned to Zone 2 but has been receiving
    assignments in Zone 1, the zone in which Piecknick claims it has
    acquired property or liberty interests from the actions of the
    State Police.   According to the complaint, the State Police began
    referring towing in Zone 1 to Insana after operating for several
    years under a policy whereby Piecknick received all towing
    business in Zone 1.4   Piecknick alleged that it was contrary to
    past policy and regulations for the State Police to refuse to
    refer all towing services in Zone 1 to Piecknick and instead to
    refer towing services to another towing company located in and
    4
    . The facts show that another towing company, Burns, had
    previously been assigned to Zone 1 along with Piecknick. Burns
    was removed from the list when it went out of business and
    Piecknick thereafter received all Zone 1 towing business for
    several years. After this action was filed, Kolor Works Tow was
    assigned to Zone 1 along with Piecknick. See Reply Brief of
    Appellants at 5.
    assigned to a different zone.    Piecknick argues that the State
    Police may not use Insana in Zone 1 because Insana was assigned
    on the map exclusively to Zone 2.    According to Piecknick, this
    action unreasonably interfered with its right to carry on its
    business and resulted in a 50%, or $40,000 per year, reduction in
    its receipts.
    The "regulation" that Piecknick relies upon is actually
    a guideline setting forth procedures for state troopers to follow
    in placing towing and wrecker calls for abandoned or disabled
    cars on state highways.    The guideline was distributed to local
    towing services by State Police "[t]o advise service garages of
    Pennsylvania State Police Policy in regard to wrecker calls in
    accident cases and laws pertaining to same."    Appendix ("App.")
    at 15a.   The guideline also states that "[t]he Trooper shall
    contact the nearest available agency offering the required
    service."   Id.5   The guideline further states that the troop
    policy is to "[c]all the nearest available [towing company] for
    required towing service on a rotational basis."    App. at 15a.     It
    states that troop personnel will not recommend a wrecker service
    and will first ask if a particular wrecker is desired.    
    Id. The communications
    room supervisor, not the trooper on the road,
    makes the decision on the nearest available towing service.      
    Id. 5 .
    The phrase "nearest available" is taken from the Pennsylvania
    State Police Field Regulations Manual. See Bolus v. Walp, No.
    91-0678, slip op. at 2 (M.D. Pa. April 16, 1992), aff'd, 
    986 F.2d 1408
    (3d Cir. 1993) (table). The State Police attached a copy of
    the field regulation as Exhibit B to its brief in support of its
    motion to dismiss. See Supplemental Brief of Appellees at 7 n.3.
    at 16a.     If the nearest available service is unable to
    immediately respond or does not have the proper equipment to do
    the job, the next nearest available service will be contacted.
    
    Id. This part
    of the guideline reiterates that "[o]ur policy is
    the nearest available to the scene on a rotational basis," 
    id. at 17a
    (emphasis added and in original), and also states that if a
    trooper at the scene makes an informed observation that a
    particular on-scene wrecking service is unable to safely and
    expediently see to the removal of a vehicle, he may request the
    services of the next nearest available service capable of
    handling the job.     
    Id. Piecknick claims
    that it is entitled to receive all
    towing calls in Zone 1 because it is located closest to the state
    highway.6    According to the State Police, its towing policy, as
    expressed in the guideline, does not require exclusive use of
    only one towing service in each zone.     It reasons that this
    appears from the fact that more than one towing service was
    6
    . At oral argument, Piecknick stated that it did not assert a
    right to a monopoly in Zone 1; rather, it argued that its
    constitutional claim arose from the mere use of a designated
    Zone 2 towing service as one of the towing services in Zone 1.
    However, an exhibit attached to its complaint states otherwise.
    In a letter dated October 20, 1992 from Piecknick's counsel to
    the State Police, attached as Exhibit C to the complaint,
    Piecknick claimed a legal right "to receive all towing calls in
    Towing Zone #1. The only exception would be if the firm was
    unavailable or did not have the requisite equipment for the job."
    App. at 20a (emphasis added). This exhibit claims a monopoly in
    Zone 1. We look solely at the allegations in the complaint when
    reviewing an order dismissing a complaint pursuant to
    Rule 12(b)(6), and Exhibit C is a part of the complaint.
    Therefore, we will consider both arguments.
    assigned to each zone as well as from use of the phrase
    "rotational basis" and the other provisions in the policy giving
    a trooper discretion to call another towing service if he or she
    believes one service may not be able to handle the job.
    Piecknick's complaint alleged it complained in writing
    to the State Police and was later informed that an investigation
    had been undertaken "under the auspices of [one of the State
    Police defendant appellees,] Captain Berryhill."   Complaint at
    ¶ 14, App. at 11a.   It never received any report of the
    investigation's findings or response to its attorney's inquiry.
    The complaint failed to allege that any individual State Police
    defendants were involved in the decision to use Insana in Zone 1,
    beyond a general allegation that using Insana on a rotational
    basis was "ratified and approved by the named officers in a chain
    of command."   Complaint at ¶ 15, App. at 12a.
    The State Police moved to dismiss the complaint on
    several grounds, including lack of subject matter and personal
    jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
    (2) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).      Piecknick
    stipulated to the dismissal of the Pennsylvania State Police in
    its corporate capacity as a state agency and clarified its
    intention to limit its claims to those against individual
    defendants.
    In an order dated November 29, 1993, the district court
    granted the State Police's motion and dismissed the complaint.
    In an accompanying opinion, the court held that Piecknick had
    failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
    against any of the defendants.      Opinion dated November 29, 1993
    at 3.   The court first concluded that the section 1983 claims
    against the individual defendants in their official capacities
    were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.      
    Id. (citing Will
    v.
    Michigan Dep't of State Police, 
    491 U.S. 58
    (1989) ("neither a
    State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are
    persons under § 1983")).      With respect to the individual
    defendants' personal liability, the court recognized that
    "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions
    generally are shielded from liability for civil damages if their
    conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
    constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
    known."    
    Id. at 4
    (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 
    457 U.S. 800
    , 818
    (1982)).   The court held that Piecknick's allegations as to the
    personal liability of the individual defendants "fail to
    sufficiently allege a violation of clearly established statutory
    or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
    known."    
    Id. Thus, it
    granted the State Police's motion to
    dismiss the section 1983 claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as to the
    individual defendants' personal liability.      It also dismissed the
    state law claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction or, perhaps more properly, pendent or supplemental
    jurisdiction.     Piecknick filed a timely notice of appeal.
    II.   Jurisdiction & Standard of Review
    The district court had subject matter jurisdiction
    under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331 and 1343 (West 1993).      We have
    jurisdiction over the appeal from the district court's final
    order under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 1993).7
    We exercise plenary review over the district court's
    dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim.   Jordan v.
    Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 
    20 F.3d 1250
    , 1261 (3d Cir.
    1994).   We must accept as true all of the factual allegations in
    the complaint as well as the reasonable inferences that can be
    drawn from them, and dismissal is appropriate only if "no relief
    could be granted under any set of facts which could be proved."
    Ransom v. Marrazzo, 
    848 F.2d 398
    , 401 (3d Cir. 1988); 
    Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261
    .
    7
    . Contrary to the State Police's assertion in its Supplemental
    Brief, Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 
    465 U.S. 89
    (1984) ("Pennhurst II") does not bar this action.
    Pennhurst II held that a "federal suit against state officials on
    the basis of state law contravenes the Eleventh Amendment when
    . . . the relief sought . . . has an impact directly on the State
    itself." 
    Id. at 117;
    see Allegheny County Sanitary Auth. v. EPA,
    
    732 F.2d 1167
    , 1173-74 (3d Cir. 1984). Pennhurst II did not
    address the Eleventh Amendment's bar of suits against state
    officials in federal court when the claims are based on
    deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights.
    Allegheny 
    County, 732 F.2d at 1174
    (citing Pennhurst 
    II, 465 U.S. at 104
    n.13). The fact that the federal due process right hinges
    upon a property or liberty interest created in part by a state
    regulation or policy statement does not make the cause of action
    any less federal in nature. See Hafer v. Melo, 
    112 S. Ct. 358
    ,
    365 (1991) (Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal section 1983
    action against state officials in their individual capacity for
    conduct undertaken as part of their state jobs and duties); see
    also Scheuer v. Rhodes, 
    416 U.S. 232
    , 237 (1974) ("[S]ince Ex
    parte Young, 
    209 U.S. 123
    (1908), it has been settled that the
    Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official
    confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal
    right under the color of state law."); Board of Regents v. Roth,
    
    408 U.S. 564
    , 577 (1972) (property interests are created and
    defined not by United States Constitution but by independent
    source, such as state law).
    III.    Property or Liberty Interest Under the Fourteenth Amendment
    A.    Property Interest
    To establish a section 1983 civil rights claim, a
    plaintiff "must demonstrate that the conduct complained of was
    committed by a person acting under state law and "'that the
    conduct deprived him of rights, privileges or immunities secured
    by the Constitution.'"        Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 
    989 F.2d 117
    , 119 (3d Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted).       Where a section
    1983 plaintiff claims a procedural due process violation, his
    claim is dependent upon the denial of a constitutionally
    protected property or liberty interest.       See U.S. Const.
    amend. XIV, § 1; Mathews v. Eldridge, 
    424 U.S. 319
    , 332 (1976);
    
    Carter, 989 F.2d at 119-20
    .
    "One alleging a property interest in a benefit
    protected by due process must go beyond showing an
    unsubstantiated expectation of the benefit."       
    Carter, 989 F.2d at 120
    .    "To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly
    must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.          He must
    have more than a unilateral expectation of it.       He must, instead,
    have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it."        Board of Regents
    v. Roth, 
    408 U.S. 564
    , 577 (1972).       Such property interests are
    "created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or
    understandings that stem from an independent source such as state
    law."   
    Id. "A person's
    interest in a benefit is a 'property'
    interest for due process purposes if there are such rules or
    mutually explicit understandings that support his claim of
    entitlement to the benefit[.]"   Perry v. Sindermann, 
    408 U.S. 593
    , 601 (1972).   "The plaintiff must demonstrate entitlement to
    a property interest created expressly by state statute or
    regulation or arising from government policy or a mutually
    explicit understanding between a government employer and an
    employee."   
    Carter, 989 F.2d at 120
    .    In this case, the existence
    of a property right is an issue of state law.    See Abercrombie v.
    City of Catoosa, 
    896 F.2d 1228
    , 1231 (10th Cir. 1990) (tow
    service owner's claim of property interest created by Oklahoma's
    wrecker statute was issue of state law).    Thus, we must examine
    the State Police towing policy and any applicable statutes or
    regulations to determine if a property right exists.     
    Id. The guideline
    that Piecknick calls a regulation is not
    a regulation with any force of law.     It was never promulgated in
    accordance with the notice and hearing procedures required for
    regulations.   See Commonwealth Documents Law, 45 Pa. Cons. Stat.
    Ann. §§ 501-907 (1991); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 45, §§ 1201-08
    (1991); see also infra typescript at 25-26.    It is no more than a
    policy statement setting forth procedures that state troopers
    should follow when handling towing calls for disabled or
    abandoned vehicles on state highways.     The guideline itself
    states its purpose is merely "to advise service garages of
    Pennsylvania State Police Policy in regard to wrecker calls in
    accident cases and laws pertaining to same."    App. at 15a.     The
    guideline uses the express term "policy" in stating "our policy
    is the nearest available to the scene on a rotational basis."
    
    Id. at 17.
      The guideline makes no commitments to any particular
    service or zone; rather, it states only that the trooper will
    call the nearest available service on a rotational basis.
    We do not believe that this guideline creates an
    enforceable contract between the towing services on the list and
    the State Police or otherwise gives any particular towing service
    a right to receive all the towing business along the highways
    adjacent to or in any particular zone.    It is too vague and
    indefinite for that purpose and to enforce it as Piecknick asks
    would be likely to interfere with traffic safety and mobility on
    our state and interstate systems as disputes arose about a
    particular towing company's proximity, availability and
    capability to handle and respond to all the calls for towing
    within a particular zone.   We will, nevertheless, consider
    whether the guideline was created to satisfy any other governing
    state statute or regulation that could create a property
    interest, or whether the guideline itself or the parties'
    mutually explicit understanding based upon the State Police's
    past practices have given Piecknick a property interest in the
    towing business on highways near his place of business within
    Zone 1.   See 
    Carter, 989 F.2d at 120
    .8
    In Pritchett v. Alford, 
    973 F.2d 307
    , 317-18 (4th Cir.
    1992), the court of appeals held that a wrecking service had a
    8
    . This is an issue of first impression for us. We declined to
    address the issue in Bolus v. Walp, Civ. A. No. 91-0678 (M.D. Pa.
    April 16, 1992) (mem. op.), aff'd without opinion, 
    986 F.2d 1408
    (3d Cir. 1993).
    constitutionally protected property right that prevented its
    removal from the South Carolina State Highway Department's
    wrecking service rotation list without prior notice or an
    opportunity to be heard.   In that case, however, state
    regulations required maintenance of the list:
    [T]he regulations required every highway
    patrol district to establish wrecker zones
    and "wrecker-rotation" lists for the zones,
    S.C. Code Regs. § 63-600(A)(8), and directed
    that the lists should be administered fairly
    and in a manner designed to ensure that all
    wrecker services on the list have an equal
    opportunity to the towing business arising
    from the rotation list. § 63-600(A)(10).
    
    Id. at 317;
    see also 
    Abercrombie, 896 F.2d at 1232
    (operator of
    wrecker service had property interest under Oklahoma law in equal
    number of referrals by city where state statute provided that
    list of wreckers must be maintained and that agency should use
    nearest available wrecker on list on alternating basis); Gregg v.
    Lawson, 
    732 F. Supp. 849
    , 853-54 (E.D. Tenn. 1989) (wrecker
    service taken off state rotational wrecker list pursuant to order
    prohibiting owners with felony record from being on list had
    constitutionally protected property interest in remaining on list
    because relevant agency regulations were more than mere internal
    matter and set forth formal procedures for removal or suspension
    from list to compel compliance with regulations).   These cases
    are distinguishable.   In all of them, a state statute or
    regulation gave a towing operator a property interest.    Here,
    there is no Pennsylvania statute or regulation governing towing
    or wrecker services.9
    Piecknick's reliance on Pataula Electric Membership
    Corp. v. Whitworth, 
    951 F.2d 1238
    , 1242-43 (11th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 
    113 S. Ct. 302
    (1992), is similarly misplaced.   There,
    the court of appeals held that the lowest bidder may have a
    property interest in an award of a contract if a state statute
    and regulation requiring competitive bidding and awards were to
    be made to the lowest bidder on contracts for state services.
    The property interest arose from the state statute requiring
    competitive bidding and a rule requiring that contracts be
    awarded to the lowest bidder.   
    Id. Here there
    is no such statute
    or rule.
    This case is also distinguishable from Stana v. School
    District of City of Pittsburgh, 
    775 F.2d 122
    (3d Cir. 1985).
    There, a school district, pursuant to a state statute providing
    that all teaching positions in the school district must be filled
    from the three highest ranking people, had an established policy
    concerning placement and ranking on a state-required eligibility
    list.   
    Id. at 124.
      Local school district policy provided that
    names on the list would be returned for four years.    This Court
    9
    . In addition, these cases from other jurisdictions all
    involved the removal of wrecker services from a call list. The
    towers removed from the list were effectively barred from
    providing services in all towing situations where the police had
    authority to direct removal of disabled vehicles. Piecknick has
    not been removed from the towing list and is still one of two
    towing services assigned to Zone 1. This distinction becomes
    relevant to Piecknick's claim of a liberty interest, a subject we
    discuss infra.
    concluded that because remaining on the eligibility list was a
    prerequisite to a teaching position, the school district had
    created a constitutional property interest and a legitimate claim
    of entitlement to remaining on the eligibility list.    
    Id. at 125,
    126-27; cf. Newark Branch, NAACP v. Town of Harrison, New Jersey,
    
    940 F.2d 792
    , 810-12 (3d Cir. 1991) (fire fighter applicants who
    were tested and added to hiring eligibility list for municipal
    fire fighter position did not have protected property interest in
    their ranking on list).
    Because there is no governing state statute or
    regulation in the case now before us, we next consider whether
    the guideline itself, or the parties' mutual understanding, is
    definite enough to create a property interest entitled to the
    constitutional protection of due process.   In O'Hare Truck
    Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 
    843 F. Supp. 1231
    , 1233 (N.D.
    Ill. 1994), the district court held that a towing service did not
    have a property right in maintaining its name on an informal
    rotation list because "the 'mutually explicit understandings'
    that constitute property interests under the holding of Perry
    cannot be based on the representations of government officials
    who are not authorized to make such representations."   
    Id. at 1233
    (quotation and citation omitted); see also Durham v. Jones,
    
    698 F.2d 1179
    , 1181 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (maintaining
    name on sheriff's informal rotating list of wrecker services did
    not amount to property interest because it was mere unilateral
    expectation on wrecker owner's part).   In O'Hare, the city's
    governing body was the only agency authorized to make such
    commitments and create such entitlement; hence, there could be no
    property right unless it had reviewed and expressed its approval
    of the practice of using the rotation list after observing the
    applicable law.   
    O'Hare, 843 F. Supp. at 1233
    , 1235.    Here, as in
    O'Hare, no state agency with statutory authority to do so has
    approved or authorized the State Police's towing policy in this
    case in the manner state law requires for the promulgation of a
    binding regulation.
    We believe White Plains Towing Corp. v. Patterson, 
    991 F.2d 1049
    (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 
    114 S. Ct. 185
    (1993), is
    particularly instructive here.    There the State Police divided an
    eleven mile stretch of state highway into three zones and
    assigned each zone to one towing company that would, when
    summoned, provide service.    
    Id. at 1053.
      These assignments gave
    a single towing company an exclusive right to towing referrals in
    its own zone.10   
    Id. Under that
    system, the State Police always
    dispatched the towing company assigned to the zone unless a
    disabled motorist requested another.    The State Police assigned a
    towing company to a zone for anywhere from two days to a year.
    The parties stipulated that the towing dispatch system was not
    specifically authorized by, or codified in, any state statute or
    regulation and that participation in the program was not
    contractual.   
    Id. 10 .
    Here, more than one towing service is assigned to each zone.
    Contrary to Piecknick's assertion, Piecknick never had an
    exclusive right to all towing in Zone 1. See supra note 4.
    The court of appeals held that the unilateral
    expectations of the towing service were insufficient to create a
    property interest.      
    Id. at 1062.
      It did so based on a conclusion
    that New York law presumes a contract for services which makes no
    specific provision for duration is terminable at will.      Thus, it
    held that a state police assignment of a particular area of
    highway to a towing company was not a property right because the
    assignment system was not specifically authorized by any statute
    or regulation but was merely an informal system that did not even
    specify the duration of the assignment.      
    Id. In Lipinski
    v. Dietrich, 
    578 F. Supp. 235
    , 238 (N.D.
    Ind. 1984), the court decided that even if a contract could be
    implied between a towing service and a municipality to retain the
    service's name on a list of towing services that police would
    call on a rotating basis, the implied contract was unenforceable
    under state law because it was impossible to ascertain the
    contract's terms.    In addition, the court concluded there was no
    mutually explicit understanding between the parties because
    neither the police nor the towing service had made any explicit
    representations about the term of the list's continued existence
    or the towing service's continuing availability, as required by
    Roth and Perry.   
    Id. We believe
    the reasoning of White Plains Towing and
    Lipinski is persuasive.      Applying that reasoning to the facts, we
    note that here Piecknick does not have an exclusive right to
    provide towing in Zone 1 because other towing services may be
    called if Piecknick is not available.      Furthermore, the right to
    tow in the zone is dependent on availability, and the towing
    guideline itself does not set aside an exclusive territory for
    any towing service.   These facts weaken Piecknick's case because
    they belie Piecknick's contention that a map setting forth zones
    in which certain nearby operators are to be called on the basis
    of availability permits an inference that a towing service listed
    in one zone cannot operate in another.
    We further note that the guideline's policy
    specifically contemplates the use of other services on a
    "rotational basis."   See App. at 17a ("Our policy is the nearest
    available on a rotational basis.").    Whatever this ambiguous
    phrase may mean, plainly it does not mean that Piecknick or
    anyone else has an exclusive right to all the towing services the
    State Police need to call on in Zone 1 or anywhere else.       State
    Police officers at the scene are permitted, in their discretion,
    to decide whether any particular wrecking service they have
    called is unable to safely and expeditiously remove the disabled
    vehicle after the wrecker arrives on the scene and, in that case,
    they may call the next nearest available towing service.
    Not only does the guideline lack a prohibition against
    using a towing service assigned to a zone other than the one
    assigned to it on the map, but it fails to set any particular
    term during which a towing service will continue to get
    assignments within its primary zone.   Pennsylvania law, like that
    of New York, presumes that a contract for services having no
    specific term is terminable at will.     See, e.g., Booth v.
    McDonnell Douglas Truck Servs., Inc., 
    585 A.2d 24
    , 27 (Pa.
    Super.), alloc. denied, 
    597 A.2d 1150
    (Pa. 1991); Darlington v.
    General Elec., 
    504 A.2d 306
    , 309 (Pa. Super. 1986).     Thus, as in
    White Plains Towing, whatever rights Piecknick may have had are
    terminable at will.   See White Plains 
    Towing, 991 F.2d at 1062
    ;
    
    Lipinski, 578 F. Supp. at 238
    .   We recognize that Pennsylvania's
    strong presumption in favor of employment at will has been
    weakened in some cases involving the rights of public employees,
    see 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 1422, 1423 (West 1991); see also Kraoja
    v. Keypunch, Inc., 
    622 A.2d 355
    , 359-60 (Pa. Super. 1993), but we
    do not believe those cases apply to situations such as this where
    the state directs third parties facing an emergency need for a
    service to an independent contractor.     Piecknick has no rights as
    an employee of the state because he is a mere supplier of
    services.   See San Bernardino Physicians' Servs. Medical Group v.
    County of San Bernardino, 
    825 F.2d 1404
    , 1409-10 (9th Cir. 1987)
    (professional corporation of physicians' four-year contracts,
    containing automatic one year extension, with county-operated
    medical center to provide emergency services which could be
    terminated only "for cause," did not create property interest and
    analogy to employment contracts failed because corporation was
    not employee of state, but rather was mere supplier of services).
    The guideline at issue here is not a regulation having
    the force of law.   The towing policy does not prohibit the State
    Police from using Insana as a towing service in Zone 1 simply
    because Insana may also service Zone 2.    The State Police are not
    required to continue towing assignments to an area designated in
    the zone map for any particular period of time, and there was no
    mutual understanding that Piecknick, as a Zone 1 operator, was
    exclusively entitled to the Zone 1 towing.      Piecknick cannot
    point to any other governing state law or regulation that creates
    a federally protected property interest guaranteeing it the right
    to provide towing services in Zone 1, to the exclusion of other
    towing services which may also be represented in other zones.
    Accordingly, Piecknick has not alleged any property interest
    entitled to protection under the Due Process Clause of the
    Fourteenth Amendment.
    B.   Liberty Interest
    The right to hold specific private employment and to
    follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental
    interference comes within both the 'liberty' and 'property'
    concepts of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.     Greene v.
    McElroy, 
    360 U.S. 474
    , 492 (1959); see also Truax v. Raich, 
    239 U.S. 33
    , 41 (1915) ("the right to work for a living in the common
    occupations of the community is of the very essence of the
    personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the
    [Fourteenth] Amendment to secure"); Cowan v. Corley, 
    814 F.2d 223
    , 227 (5th Cir. 1987).
    "[T]he Constitution only protects this liberty from
    state actions that threaten to deprive persons of the right to
    pursue their chosen occupation.    State actions that exclude a
    person from one particular job are not actionable in suits . . .
    brought directly under the due process clause."     Bernard v.
    United Township High Sch. Dist. No. 30, 
    5 F.3d 1090
    , 1092 (7th
    Cir. 1993).   "'It is the liberty to pursue a calling or
    occupation, and not the right to a specific job, that is secured
    by the Fourteenth Amendment.'"   
    Id. (quoting Wroblewski
    v. City
    of Washburn, 
    965 F.2d 452
    , 455 (7th Cir. 1992)).
    In Cowan, the United States Court of Appeals for the
    Fifth Circuit considered a case in which a wrecking company had
    alleged a property or liberty interest because the local sheriff,
    in disregard of a service call list, gave certain wrecker
    companies preferential treatment in the assignment of calls.
    After complaining to the sheriff, the plaintiff was expelled from
    the wrecker association and was therefore barred from receiving
    further county business.   Although it concluded there was
    probably no property interest, the court of appeals held that the
    district court should have considered whether a liberty interest
    existed.   
    Cowan, 814 F.2d at 228
    .   The court of appeals expressed
    no opinion on the existence of any liberty interest but simply
    reversed the district court's order granting dismissal of the
    section 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim and remanded
    it to consider, in the first instance, whether the complaint
    alleged a protected liberty interest.    
    Id. at 227-28.
               There are at least two other district court cases on
    point.   In Nall v. Pitre, No. 88-965 (M.D. La. June 9, 1989), a
    towing service filed a section 1983 claim against a sheriff after
    he removed the tower's wrecking service from the rotating call
    list without allowing the towing service an opportunity to be
    heard.   The Sheriff moved for summary judgment, arguing that the
    towing service had not established a constitutionally protected
    liberty or property interest.    After considering evidence that
    the towing company had been on the list for nine years,
    evidencing an understanding sufficient to create a property
    interest, the district court held there were questions of fact
    about the intentions of the parties that precluded summary
    judgment.    The court recognized that no contract nor binding rule
    or regulation accompanied the list, which was developed and used
    without public notice, but it nevertheless determined there was a
    genuine dispute of material fact from which an agreement could be
    inferred.    
    Id., slip op.
    at 2-3.   Specifically, the court denied
    the motion for summary judgment in order to give the plaintiff a
    chance to prove the existence of a custom or practice from which
    a mutual understanding sufficiently definite enough to create a
    property interest could be inferred in the absence of official
    rules or regulations governing towing.    Applying Cowan, the court
    also reasoned, in the absence of any property interest, the owner
    of a towing service might have a liberty interest that would make
    his complete removal from the rotation list an unreasonable
    governmental interference with his right to pursue a livelihood.
    
    Id. at 3.
       But see 
    Stana, 775 F.2d at 125
    n.1 (removal from
    teacher eligibility list could implicate liberty interest in
    following chosen profession but where plaintiff has not alleged
    publication of the list, she cannot claim deprivation of liberty
    interest).
    Nall is distinguishable.   Piecknick was not threatened
    with a loss of its right to engage in the towing business.      It
    was not completely removed from the towing rotation call list,
    and it remained in the Zone 1 rotation.     The police merely
    substituted Insana for a company with which Piecknick had
    formerly shared Zone 1 rotation.
    Cowan is also distinguishable.   There, the towing
    company became unable to compete for its fair share of the local
    towing business because the sheriff gave preferential treatment
    to plaintiff's competitors, and the towing business ultimately
    lost all ability to compete by virtue of being summarily expelled
    from the towing association that receives all county business.
    See 
    Cowan, 814 F.2d at 225
    .
    In Bolus v. Walp, the second district court case, the
    United States District Court for the Middle District of
    Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Pennsylvania State
    Police officials in an action challenging a State Police towing
    policy in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.    There, the plaintiff,
    Bolus Towing, alleged that the State Police failed to comply with
    the provisions of the Pennsylvania State Police Field Regulations
    Manual.    The section Bolus Towing relied on provided that the
    police should contact the nearest available towing service when
    towing service is needed.    After an accident on Interstate 81,
    the driver of the disabled vehicle asked the state police to
    contact the truck owner to authorize a towing service to tow the
    vehicle.    There was evidence that the owner of the disabled
    vehicle requested a particular towing service to do the towing,
    but the identity of the service the owner requested was not clear
    and the vehicle's owner changed his mind in favor of Bolus Towing
    after Bolus arrived on the scene and asked for the job.     One of
    the police officers on the scene refused to allow Bolus Towing to
    carry out the job unless it compensated the other towing company
    previously called.    The court observed that the Pennsylvania
    State Police Field Regulations were not promulgated in compliance
    with the Commonwealth Documents Law, 45 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.
    §§ 501, 1201-08 (1991), and thus the public was not invited to
    hearings or to comment upon them.    Relying on Chrysler Corp. v.
    Brown, 
    441 U.S. 281
    , 301 (1979), the district court held that the
    Field Regulations provided no substantive rights11 because they
    were not promulgated pursuant to any mandate or delegation of
    legislative authority.     Bolus, slip op. at 6 (citing Chrysler
    
    Corp., 441 U.S. at 301
    ).    The Field Regulations were merely
    internal departmental regulations, or interpretive rules,
    governing the police themselves.    
    Id. Here, as
    in Bolus, the towing policy in Washington
    County was not promulgated in compliance with the Commonwealth
    Documents Law.    Thus, the State Police again argue that it does
    not have the force of law needed to create a property or liberty
    interest.    Piecknick responds that compliance with the Documents
    Law is not controlling in regard to Piecknick's liberty interest
    claim because Piecknick's claim relies on an established custom
    11
    . The district court alternatively held that the State Police
    policy was followed because it provided that where two towing
    services are located within a reasonable distance of each other,
    they may both be considered nearest, and which to call was a
    matter of indifference so long as there was no evidence of
    improper partiality. The incident which precipitated the
    complaint involved in Bolus did not involve the regulations
    Piecknick challenges because there the officer acted upon the
    driver's request as to towing service. 
    Id. at 7.
    and practice concerning the division of tow work in Washington
    County rather than the written policy itself.   It argues the
    custom is itself sufficient to support a due process claim.
    The Commonwealth Documents Law distinguishes between a
    "regulation" and a "statement of policy."   It states that the
    latter may consist of "[a]ny document, except . . . a regulation,
    promulgated by an agency which sets forth substantive or
    procedural personal or property rights, privileges, immunities,
    duties, liabilities or obligations of the public or any part
    thereof, and includes, without limiting the generality of the
    foregoing, any document interpreting or implementing any statute
    enforced or administered by such agency."   45 Pa. Cons. Stat.
    Ann. § 501.   An agency's policy statement must be promulgated in
    accordance with the Commonwealth Documents Law if it is to
    establish a standard of conduct with the force of law.   Compare
    Orbera v. Commonwealth, 
    497 A.2d 693
    , 695-96 (Pa. Commw. 1985)
    with Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n v. Norristown Area Sch.
    Dist., 
    374 A.2d 671
    , 679 (Pa. 1977).   Because of our conclusion
    that the Washington County towing guideline does not create any
    "substantive or procedural personal or property rights," 45 Pa.
    Cons. Stat. Ann. § 501, the Documents Law is indeed inapplicable.
    Nevertheless, we agree with Piecknick that failure to follow the
    Documents Law does not bar consideration of whether the towing
    guideline or any policy, practice or custom that arose out of it
    or out of a mutual understanding between the parties created a
    property or liberty interest.
    Ultimately, however, we believe Piecknick's argument
    fails.   Although Piecknick's complaint alleges that it was the
    custom and practice of the State Police, over the past four
    years, to use only Zone 1 designated operators to perform towing
    in Zone 1, there is no allegation that this custom was to
    continue for any term.    Adding Insana, a Zone 2 designated
    operator, to the operators who the police could call on to
    perform towing services in Zone 1 is not an unreasonable
    interference with Piecknick's right to pursue its chosen
    occupation.   This case is distinguishable from those in which a
    person's license to pursue a chosen occupation is revoked or
    substantially interfered with, see Herz v. Degnan, 
    648 F.2d 201
    (3d Cir. 1981), or where there is harm to an individual's
    reputation, see Chilingirian v. Boris, 
    882 F.2d 200
    (6th Cir.
    1989).   See also 
    Durham, 698 F.2d at 1181
    (sheriff did not affect
    towing company's right to operate towing service or ability to
    perform towing for other law enforcement agencies where it
    refused to place towing service on call list).    It is the liberty
    to pursue a particular calling or occupation and not the right to
    a specific job that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
    See 
    Bernard, 5 F.3d at 1092
    .
    Accordingly, we hold that no liberty interest has been
    alleged in this case.12
    12
    . Because we have concluded that no property or liberty
    interest is implicated, we would not reach the issue of qualified
    immunity even if the issue of qualified immunity could be
    determined on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
    IV.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the district
    court's order dismissing the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(6).13
    13
    . On appeal, Piecknick seeks to amend its complaint to
    refashion the state law claim of interference with business
    opportunity as a federal constitutional claim alleging "police
    harassment". Brief of Appellant at 15 (citing Philadelphia
    Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc'y of Friends v. Tate, 
    519 F.2d 1335
    (3d Cir. 1975) (police harassment can sustain cause of
    action under section 1983) and San Jacinto Sav. and Loan v.
    Kacal, 
    928 F.2d 697
    (5th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (same)). This
    issue is waived. Piecknick never sought leave to amend its
    complaint in the district court when it had the opportunity to do
    so. Because Piecknick did not raise this issue in the district
    court, we will refrain from considering it. See Newark Morning
    Ledger Co. v. United States, 
    539 F.2d 929
    , 932-33 (3d Cir. 1976).