ASS'N FOR LA DEPUTY SHERIFFS v. County of LA
648 F.3d 986
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Four LA County deputy sheriffs were charged with felonies and suspended without pay after notice of the impending suspensions; they challenged the process in federal court.
- Some deputies were reinstated pending hearings, but later discharged; Debs and O'Donoghue received post-suspension hearings while Wilkinson and Sherr did not receive post-suspension relief or a meaningful hearing before retirement changes.
- Plaintiffs alleged due process violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming the County’s policy denied meaningful post-suspension hearings and/or biased procedures.
- District court dismissed claims against the County and granted qualified immunity to some defendants; Plaintiffs appealed challenging procedural due process, Monell liability, and immunity rulings.
- Court addresses procedural due process obligations for suspensions based on felony charges, Monell liability for municipal policy, and qualified immunity for individual defendants, ultimately remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-suspension hearing required when felony charges filed? | Wilkinson/Sherr | County/ Sheriff | Yes; post-suspension hearings required; denial discussed as unlawful policy. |
| Monell liability for policies denying post-suspension hearings? | Wilkinson/Sherr | County/ Supervisors | Sufficient to state Monell claim; remand for fact-finding. |
| Sufficiency of Debs/O'Donoghue post-suspension hearings? | Debs/O'Donoghue | County/ Commission | Post-suspension process could be constitutionally insufficient; not clearly established at the time; remand for Mathews analysis. |
| Qualified immunity for Sheriff/Board re: Wilkinson/Sherr claims? | Wilkinson/Sherr | Sheriff/Board | Sheriff/Board not entitled to qualified immunity on Wilkinson/Sherr claims. |
| Qualified immunity for Debs/O'Donoghue on their due process claims? | Debs/O'Donoghue | All defendants | Individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity regarding Debs/O'Donoghue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests defined by state law; due process applicability depends on existence of protected interest)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1997) (pre-suspension vs. post-suspension process; felonies permit suspension without pre- hearing; post-hearing may be required)
- Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (public employee property interest; pretermination process and post-termination procedures)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for due process: private interest, risk of error, government interests)
- Mallen v. Bucks County, 486 U.S. 230 (U.S. 1988) (pre-suspension proceedings; post-deprivation process may suffice in urgent cases)
- Zuniga v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Comm’n, 137 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal. App. 2006) (commission lacked jurisdiction over retired deputy appeals; affects procedural posture but not constitutional requirements)
- Miller v. County of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 1994) (full faith and credit to administrative findings on the ‘primary right’ in §1983 actions)