Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Man Fired As Police Officer Has No Claim Based on Substantive Due-Process Denial
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A man who alleges he was fired as a police officer not based on deficiency of his performance but in response to public pressure after a video was released showing him beating a suspect in his former employment with a campus security force has failed to state a cognizable claim, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday, affirming the dismissal of his lawsuit without leave to amend.
Plaintiff Johnathon contended in his complaint alleging a civil rights violation by the City of Los Gatos and by Peter Decena, chief of the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department that the defendants violated his right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
He asserted:
“The Plaintiff was terminated for reasons that are arbitrary, capricious, and have no reasonable or rational support. If the Plaintiff can lawfully be terminated on such basis, he in effect, would never be able to secure employment in any way.”
Silva stressed that he had been exonerated in an internal investigation of the 2016 incident in effecting an arrest while a member of the San Jose State University Police Department
Precedent Cited
In ordering the dismissal of Silva’s complaint on Dec. 9, 2021, District Court Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California pointed to the Ninth Circuit’s 2007 decision in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture. There, Circuit Judge (now Senior Circuit Judge) A. Wallace Tashima said:
“We decline to hold that there is no substantive due process claim for a public employer’s violations of occupational liberty. Rather, we limit the claim to extreme cases, such as a ‘government blacklist….’”
He explained:
“Such a governmental act would threaten the same right as a legislative action that effectively banned a person from a profession, and thus calls for the same level of constitutional protection.”
District Court’s Ruling
Applying the decision in Engquist, Davila said:
“Here, Silva alleges that Defendants terminated his employment in response to public pressure. This allegation, without more, is insufficient to state a cognizable substantive due process claim….Silva does not allege that Defendants took any stigmatizing action, much less action akin to ‘blacklisting’ him from working as a police officer. Nor does he allege that Defendants’ conduct makes it virtually impossible for him to find new employment. Instead, Silva alleges only that ‘[i]f [he] can lawfully be terminated on such a basis, he in effect, would never be able to secure employment in any way.’…There are no factual allegations from which to reasonably infer Defendants’ actions ‘destroyed’ his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.”
Affirmance came in a memorandum opinion by Circuit Judges Patrick J. Bumatay and M. Margaret McKeown and Senior Circuit Judge Jay Bybee.
Engquist Cited
They wrote:
“Silva did not allege that he has been blacklisted from the police force or that the police force was responsible for the public outcry over his hiring….His claim does not survive the Engquist standard.”
Silva insisted that a 1988 Ninth Circuit decision relating to the denial of a city building permit controlled. The Ninth Circuit judges responded:
“Because Silva’s claim falls squarely within Engquist’s higher standard for public employment substantive due process claims, Engquist is dispositive.”
The case is Silva v. City of Los Gatos, 22-15017.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company