David Carleton v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
372 F. App'x 806
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 31, 201008-56183California844 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

David Carleton appeals orders dismissing some of his claims and granting summary judgment as to others in favor of the County of Los Angeles, Office of the Alternate Public Defender (APD), and Janice Fukai in his action under Section 1983 arising out of his employment as Chief Deputy and Division Chief of the APD. We affirm on the merits, but vacate in part the order awarding attorney’s fees.

I

Carleton maintains that his substantive due process rights were violated when he suffered psychological harm from being relegated to Division Chief in Bixel. However, this was neither alleged in Carleton’s pleadings nor raised in any form in district court, so we decline to consider it. In any event, the argument lacks authority in support.

Carleton also posits that Fukai’s treatment amounted to a stigma that prevents him from performing legal management positions. This fails because Carle-ton was not denied the right to engage in his chosen profession, the practice of law, which is the relevant universe — not legal management. See Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that while “there is a centuries-old concept of liberty of occupation ...…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.