981 F.3d 719
9th Cir.2020Background
- In 2004 LAPD seized ~463 firearms from Wayne Wright pursuant to a search warrant; Wright later pled guilty and agreed firearms would be destroyed or returned if he proved ownership per LAPD policy.
- Over years Wright (through counsel) provided receipts and a sworn declaration; LAPD released ~80 firearms but retained the remainder while reviewing ownership claims.
- In Sept. 2011 the Ventura County court ordered release of 26 firearms and instructed the parties to meet-and-confer regarding the rest; LAPD officers told Wright they were still reviewing his records.
- In Dec. 2013 LAPD Detective Edwards filed an ex parte application in Los Angeles County Superior Court for an order permitting destruction of the remaining firearms without giving Wright or his counsel notice; the court granted the order and LAPD destroyed the guns in June 2014.
- Wright sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment due-process violations and a Monell failure-to-train claim; the district court granted summary judgment and qualified immunity to defendants; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did seeking and obtaining an ex parte destruction order without notice violate Wright's Fourteenth Amendment right to notice and an opportunity to be heard? | Wright: No notice of the ex parte application; ongoing ownership dispute made notice required under Mullane/Fuentes/Peralta. | Defendants: No additional notice required after lawful seizure; statutory schemes provided constructive notice; Ventura court had resolved issues. | Yes. A reasonable jury could find a due-process violation because Wright lacked notice of the ex parte destruction proceeding. |
| Is Edwards entitled to qualified immunity for seeking destruction without notice? | Wright: The right to notice before permanent deprivation was clearly established. | Edwards: Actions were consistent with law, LAPD policy, and court practice. | No. The right to notice before permanent destruction was clearly established; Edwards not entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Are LAPD detectives Tompkins and Edwards’s colleague Aubry individually liable for the due-process violation? | Wright: Their conduct in opposing release and handling review contributed to deprivation. | Tompkins/Aubry: No evidence they instructed or facilitated the ex parte filing or failed to notify. | Summary judgment for Tompkins and Aubry affirmed—no evidence linking them to the ex parte filing or notice failure. |
| Is the City/Chief Beck/City Attorney Feuer liable under Monell (failure-to-train), and were Beck/Feuer entitled to qualified immunity in official-capacity suits? | Wright: Municipal failure-to-train claim is derivative of surviving due-process violation. | Defendants: No underlying constitutional violation or qualified immunity applies. | Monell failure-to-train claim remanded for further proceedings because a municipal claim can proceed if the underlying claim survives; qualified immunity does not apply to officials sued only in their official capacities, so reversal as to Beck and Feuer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties and afford opportunity to be heard)
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) (ex parte seizures without prior notice and hearing violate due process)
- Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (1988) (default judgment entered without notice is constitutionally infirm)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) (due process requires reasonable efforts to provide notice, not necessarily actual notice)
- City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (1999) (publicly available statutory procedures can satisfy notice obligations in some contexts)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (state cannot create procedures that render hearing rights meaningless)
- Mena v. City of Simi Valley, 226 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2000) (officers not entitled to qualified immunity where they needlessly destroyed property)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified immunity shields officials unless conduct violates clearly established rights)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (clearly established law may be obvious even without a case directly on point)