Stivers

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge NOONAN.

OPINION

This action arises out of decisions by the Nevada State Private Investigators Licensing Board (“the Board”), denying the plaintiffs’ applications for licenses in the fields of private investigation, private patrol, and process serving. The plaintiffs contend that one of the Board members had a pecuniary interest in the outcome and was biased against them. They also contend that, influenced by that member’s bias, the other Board members and certain employees prejudged their applications and acted in an arbitrary and improper manner.

Plaintiffs Martin Stivers, Mary Chase Ernsberger, and Chamar, Inc. brought suit under section 1983 for declaratory relief, in-junctive relief, and damages. The plaintiffs contend that the denial of their license applications violated their due process right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. After this action was filed, the Board granted Stivers’ application for individual licenses in order to settle the plaintiffs’ claims for in-junctive relief. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining claims, and rejected the plaintiffs’…

concurring:

I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court except that I do not believe it appropriate in Part II B1 for the court to speculate as to the existence of a genuine issue as to the appearance of bias and as to the facts Stivers might conceivably prove; I do not believe that Stivers has shown that Rodefer’s report was the result of any decision by the Board to harass him; in Part IV A2 n. 9, the court has mistakenly expanded Sablan, 856 F.2d at 1827 by prefacing the quote from Sabían with the words “if prior to the assertion of the plaintiffs claim;” and under Fairar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 , -, 113 S.Ct. 566, 575 , 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) the plaintiffs in the plural are not entitled to any counsel fees because only Stivers achieved success.