From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Latty v. Polk Cnty. Sheriff's Office

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2022
No. 21-35794 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2022)

Opinion

21-35794

10-06-2022

SHON LATTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, a department of Polk County; POLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, a department of Polk County; AARON FELTON, Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 4, 2022 Portland, Oregon

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00883-MO Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM

Shon Latty appeals from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights related to his position as a deputy with the Polk County Sheriff's Office. "We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment." Christian v. Umpqua Bank, 984 F.3d 801, 808 (9th Cir. 2020). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Latty's procedural due process claim arising from the disclosure of a disciplinary memorandum to Polk County District Attorney Aaron Felton ("DA Felton"), which ultimately led to Latty's placement on the Polk County District Attorney's Office's Brady list. "We analyze a procedural due process claim in two steps. [T]he first asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient." United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1013 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Even if Latty was deprived of a protected liberty or property interest, he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the process he received was inadequate. See Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 863 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Due process is a flexible concept that varies with the particular situation. The base requirement of the Due Process Clause is that a person deprived of property be given an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (citations omitted)). It is undisputed that Latty received an opportunity to be heard prior to his disciplinary suspension and an opportunity to be heard by DA Felton before he was placed on the Brady list. Latty fails to show that these hearings were insufficient to give him "an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner," and that he was also entitled to additional process before the disciplinary memorandum was disclosed to DA Felton. Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, the district court properly concluded that, even if disclosure of the disciplinary memorandum entitled Latty to additional process, Latty received notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the disclosure. For example, the record reflects that Polk County Counsel emailed Latty's attorney that "[i]f Dep. Latty would like a name clearing hearing let me know and we can set something up prior to any disclosure to the DA's office."

Latty does not raise the district court's grant of summary judgment on his substantive due process claim in his opening brief and therefore he has forfeited that issue. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Because we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on Latty's procedural due process claim on the merits, and because Latty has forfeited his substantive due process claim on appeal, we do not reach the district court's grant of summary judgment on the alternative ground that the Polk County Sheriff's Office is not a legal entity capable of being sued under § 1983. Nor do we reach the district court's denial of Latty's motion to substitute Polk County as a defendant in lieu of the Polk County Sheriff's Office, or the district court's denial of Latty's motion to file a second amended complaint to add Sheriff Mark Garton and Sheriff Robert Wolfe as defendants.

Although the Polk County District Attorney's Office and DA Felton are named as Appellees, Latty's opening brief does not challenge the district court's order dismissing these two defendants for failure to state a claim. Therefore, Latty has forfeited any challenge to the district court's dismissal of these two defendants. See Smith, 194 F.3d at 1052.

AFFIRMED.

The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.


Summaries of

Latty v. Polk Cnty. Sheriff's Office

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2022
No. 21-35794 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2022)
Case details for

Latty v. Polk Cnty. Sheriff's Office

Case Details

Full title:SHON LATTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, a…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 6, 2022

Citations

No. 21-35794 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2022)