Alads

concurring:

I agree with the disposition, but disagree that Deputies Debs and O’Donoghue were afforded adequate post-deprivation process based on the availability of state court review.

In Association for Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (ALADS I), 648 F.3d 986 (9th Cir.2011), we recognized that Debs and O’Donoghue could have pursued petitions for mandamus in Los Angeles Superior Court but chose instead to pursue procedural due process claims in federal court. Id. at 991 n. 4. Knowing that the state courts were available, see id. at 991 n. 4, 992 n. 5, we nevertheless reversed the dismissal of the deputies’ procedural due process claim, see id. at 993-97 (analyzing the constitutionality of the procedures and giving no weight to — and, indeed, entirely failing to mention — the availability of state court review). In short, ALADS I is inconsistent with the holding here that the availability of state court proceedings could salvage an *715 otherwise inadequate post-suspension process.

I agree, however, that Debs and O’Do-noghue were afforded adequate process based on the applicable substantive standard for suspension without pay that was established by…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES No. 13-55751 DEPUTY SHERIFFS, in Its Representational Capacity, on Behalf of its D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00238-RGK- Members; et al., FFM

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipal Corporation; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES No. 13-55864 DEPUTY SHERIFFS, in Its Representational Capacity, on Behalf of its D.C. No.2:08-cv-00238-RGK- Members; et al., FFM

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipal Corporation; et al.,

Defendants - Appellants.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2015 Pasadena, California

Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and…

MEMORANDUM *

The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the County of Los Angeles bring cross-appeals of the district court’s grants of summary judgment in a case concerning the requirements of due process when law enforcement officers are charged with felonies and suspended without pay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

This is the second appeal of this case. A detailed factual recitation is found in Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (ALADS), 648 F.3d 986, 989-91 (9th Cir.2011).

On remand, the district court granted summary judgment against plaintiffs Debs and O’Donoghue. “We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.” Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir.2011). Debs and O’Donoghue argue that the ten-day evidentiary hearings they received following their suspensions were inadequate because the County applied a blanket policy of upholding all suspensions based on felony charges. Even if the County followed such a policy, no due process violation resulted because Debs and O’Donoghue were free to challenge the Commission’s orders in state court. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code…