Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
648 F.3d 986·2011 WL 3524129·32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1198·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16801
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 12, 2011No. 08-56283California6,854 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pregerson, J.

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON;

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge IKUTA.

OPINION

This appeal concerns the requirements of due process when law enforcement officers charged with felonies are suspended without pay. We affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the district court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Darrin Wilkinson, David Sherr, Lisa Brown Debs, and Sean O’Donoghue are four current or former Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs, joined by their union, the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Defendants are the County of Los Angeles (the “County”), the Los Angeles County Supervisors (the “Supervisors”), the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commissioners (the “Civil Service Commissioners”), *990 and the Los Angeles County Sheriff (the “Sheriff”) (collectively, “Defendants”). ■

All four deputy sheriffs were charged with felonies. Plaintiff Wilkinson was charged in June 2002 with nine felony counts of falsifying police reports. Plaintiff Sherr was charged on June 11, 2003, with seven counts of workers’ compensation insurance fraud, perjury, and grand theft. Plaintiff Debs was charged on June 27, 2004,…

Concurrence in Part

Ikuta, J.

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter ... to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Here, Wilkinson and Sherr alleged a plausible violation of their due process rights, namely, that they never received a hearing after being suspended without pay. Because a government employee has a constitutional right to such a post-suspension hearing, see Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924, 930 , 117 S.Ct. 1807 , 138 L.Ed.2d 120 (1997), I concur in sections II.A and III.A of the majority opinion.

Debs and O’Donoghue, on the other hand, did not allege a plausible violation of their due process rights. Both received all the process that was due: they had full hearings before hearing officers after they were suspended, and the Commission ordered both to be reinstated, although it denied backpay on the ground that the *999 suspensions were justified. Debs and O’Donoghue do not challenge the Commission’s procedures, but…

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.