Clark v. Town of Buckeye

Good Law
343 F. App'x 177
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 5, 2009No. 08-15614California915 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Kevin Clark appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Town of Buckeye and Town officials Murel Stephens, Dustin Hull, and Carroll Reynolds, in their official capacities, (collectively, “the Town”) in Clark’s § 1983 action alleging violations of his due process and First Amendment rights in connection with his termination. We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we review de novo the grant of summary judgment. Lukovsky v. City & County of San *179 Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We reverse the grant of summary judgment as to Clark’s pre-termination due process claim, affirm on all other claims, and remand for further proceedings.

1. A public employee who is dis-missable only for cause is “entitled to a very limited hearing prior to his termination, to be followed by a more comprehensive post-termination hearing.” Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924, 929 , 117 S.Ct. 1807 , 138 L.Ed.2d 120 (1997) (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985)). Although the pre-termination hearing “need not be elaborate,” it must provide…

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.