Patrick Leonard v. City of Los Angeles
669 F. App'x 912
9th Cir.2016Background
- Patrick Leonard and Steven Barrett were firefighters assigned to the Los Angeles Fire Department’s Arson Counter Terrorism Section (Arson) but failed a required psychological exam for investigator positions with peace-officer powers.
- The City transferred them out of Arson after they failed the exam; they sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting procedural due process violations (property and liberty interests) and raised state claims under POBRA and FFBOR.
- Plaintiffs conceded that passing the psychological exam was an advertised and statutory requirement for remaining in the Arson assignment and were told by supervisors they had to pass to stay.
- Plaintiffs alleged the City published stigmatizing information about their psychological disqualifications, supporting a liberty-interest claim; they relied on deposition pages claimed to show publication.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City on all claims; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property interest in Arson assignment | Plaintiffs argued they had a vested property interest in their Arson assignment and therefore were entitled to due process before removal | City argued assignment was contingent on meeting statutory requirements (psych exam) so no vested property interest existed | No property interest; plaintiffs failed to meet the psych exam requirement, so summary judgment for City |
| Liberty interest (stigma-plus) | Plaintiffs argued the City disseminated stigmatizing information about their psychological disqualifications | City argued there was no evidence of publication; deposition pages cited were not in the appellate record and amounted to rumor/speculation | No publication proven; liberty claim fails |
| POBRA/FFBOR punitive action claim | Plaintiffs argued their transfer was punitive and thus triggered protections under POBRA/FFBOR | City argued denial of promotion/assignment during probation and for failing statutory requirements is not punitive action under state law | Not punitive under state law; POBRA/FFBOR claims fail |
| Adequacy of pre/post-deprivation procedures | Plaintiffs argued procedures to contest transfer were inadequate | City maintained procedures were sufficient; court did not need to decide because other grounds disposed of case | Court did not reach this question |
Key Cases Cited
- Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing facts in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 1998) (no property interest in promotion contingent on meeting requirements)
- Llamas v. Butte Cmty. Coll. Dist., 238 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2001) (liberty interest requires dissemination of stigmatizing information)
- Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1988) (appellate consideration limited to the record on appeal)
- Guinn v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 184 Cal. App. 4th 941 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (denial of promotion during probation is not punitive action under POBRA/FFBOR)