Richard Dorr v. County of Butte Butte County Sheriff's Department Mick Grey, Individually and as Deputy Sheriff of Butte County

After being discharged from his position as a probationary regular employee with the Butte County Sheriffs Department, Richard Dorr commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that defendants had deprived him of liberty and property without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Dorr’s federal claims and dismissed the pendent state claims. Dorr timely appealed the district court’s holding that he lacked a protected property interest in his continued employment. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

“The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property.” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). To prevail on the claim that his termination constituted a denial of property without due process of law, Dorr must demonstrate that he had a protected interest in continued employment.

State law defines what is and what is not property: “Property interests ... are not created by the Constitution____ [T]hey are created and their…

concurring specially:

I concur but write separately because I view the case in a light different from that of the majority. My view is set forth by the following explanation:

1. Plaintiff was hired as a deputy sheriff with a one-year probationary status.

2. Less than a month later he was charged with violating California Penal Code § 134, a felony. That statute penalizes using false documents and preparing false evidence.

3. He was then terminated as an employee of the county for the stated reason of “probationary rejection.”

4. Subsequently, he was acquitted of the charges in a jury trial.

5. He brought suit against the defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , claiming a violation of his property and liberty rights.

6. In California, a probationary employee has a liberty interest if the termination is based on charges of misconduct that stigmatize his or her reputation or seriously impair his or her opportunity to earn a living. Lubey v. City & County of San Francisco, 98 Cal.App.3d 340, 345 , 159 Cal.Rptr. 440, 443 (1979). However, plaintiff does not appeal the liberty right issue, so it is not before us in this appeal.

7. The sole issue before us is whether the…

795 F.2d 875 Richard DORR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF BUTTE; Butte County Sheriff's Department; Mick Grey, individually and as Deputy Sheriff of Butte County, et al, Defendants-Appellees. No. 85-2247. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 12, 1986. Decided July 30, 1986. James W. Lewis, Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Philip B. Price, Price, Price, Brown & Halsey, Chico, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before SNEED, FARRIS and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges. FARRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 After being discharged from his position as a probationary regular employee with the Butte County Sheriff's Department, Richard Dorr commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that defendants had deprived him of liberty and property without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Dorr's federal claims and dismissed the pendent state claims. Dorr timely appealed the district court's holding that he lacked a protected property interest in his continued employment. This court has…