Marcellino Pena v. Bob Kindler
863 F.3d 994
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pena worked full-time since 2008 as Freeborn County Assistant Jail Administrator (no regular law‑enforcement duties, licensing/arrest authority not required for the role) but remained a sworn deputy and licensed by the state board and could carry a County firearm.
- As Assistant Jail Administrator he managed contracts (including an ICE detainee contract) and occasionally transported ICE detainees, which he admits he did but says he was not ordered to do so.
- Multiple complaints of sexual harassment and related misconduct led Sheriff Kindler to investigate; Pena was suspended with pay, given notice of allegations, interviewed, and later given a chance to appear before the County Board, which voted to terminate him.
- Pena sought PODPA protections after termination; County determined he was not a “peace officer” or “part‑time peace officer” under Minnesota Statutes § 626.84 and thus not entitled to PODPA procedures.
- Pena appealed to Minnesota Court of Appeals (which found the record insufficient to show PODPA entitlement and that Pena had no property interest) and then sued in federal court asserting § 1983 due process and PODPA claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pena was deprived of constitutionally adequate procedural due process before termination | Pena: He had a property interest in employment and did not receive required procedural protections | County: Pena received sufficient pre‑ and post‑termination process (notice, interview, Board hearing, certiorari review) | Court: Process provided (notice, opportunity to be heard, post‑termination review) satisfied Due Process; no need to decide property interest |
| Whether PODPA applies because Pena was a “peace officer” under Minn. Stat. § 626.84(c) | Pena: He was licensed, a sworn deputy, transported ICE detainees (contract required licensed officers), so he was “charged with” enforcement | County: His actual duties were administrative; transporting detainees was not a superior‑assigned general law‑enforcement duty and did not make him "charged with" enforcement | Court: Not a peace officer—“charged with” means hired/instructed to enforce general criminal laws; Pena’s voluntary transport did not satisfy that requirement |
| Whether Pena is a “part‑time peace officer” under § 626.84(d) | Pena: At minimum, he is part‑time because he performed some law‑enforcement tasks | County: He worked full‑time as Assistant Jail Administrator; even occasional transport does not make him a part‑time officer | Court: Not a part‑time officer—either “utilized” requires assigned enforcement duties or, absent that, he exceeded 20 hrs/week and thus is excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pretermination hearing standards under Due Process)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (procedural due process principles distinguishing substance and procedure)
- Sutton v. Bailey, 702 F.3d 444 (8th Cir.: informal notice and opportunity to present side can satisfy Due Process)
- Schleck v. Ramsey County, 939 F.2d 638 (8th Cir.: pretermination meeting may suffice when post‑termination review is available)
- Krentz v. Robertson Fire Prot. Dist., 228 F.3d 897 (8th Cir.: Due Process pre/post‑termination hearing analysis)